THE

CRUSADES
OF

21ST CENTURY

BY RIAZ AMIN
Vol-IV

CONTENTS
RECOLLECTING4
JAAFARI JAM .... 7
KINGDOM OF KARZAI...27
MAZE OF MILITANCY41
DEMOCRATIC DILEMMAS...69
TARGETED KILLINGS..105
DOING MORE RISKING MORE..127
JAAFARI TO MALIKI156
TENACIOUS TEHRAN...177
BATTLING FOR PEACE ...212
GLOBAL CRUSADES.244
ILLEGAL ALL THE WAY.290
TENACIOUS TEHRAN II320
MONSTER TURNED GHOST357
HUNG ON THE HOOK...379
MAIN BATTLEGROUND...398
GLOBAL CRUSADES II .425
ESCALATION BY ISRAEL455
PEACE BUT NO PEACE 470
PHASE III WEEK I ......498
RESURGING TALIBAN.526
PHASE III WEEK II 557
ALWAYS ACCUSED...598
PHASE III WEEK III....622
PHASE III WEEK IV666
MAIN THEATRE.....708

PHASE III WEEK V..730

BLUE UMBRELLA .760
BLUE UMBRELLA II...797
BUSY BEE.....816
ALL OVER ALL OUT 838
MURDER OF A MURDERER ...875
ISLAMIC FASCISM898

RECOLLECTING
The war has been raging for more than four-and-a-half years. No end
is in sight as the intended goals have not been achieved as yet. This proved
that Bush Administration was right when after 9/11 it vowed to fight a global
war that could last for decades.
This is the only truth about the ongoing war. The aim of defeating
terror has been almost forgotten. The news and reviews now rarely make a
mention of this evil. Usually, these pertain to global/regional hegemony;
control of resources of weaker countries, particularly oil; proliferation of
nuclear weapons; insurgencies, civil war and sectarian strife.
The initial claim about holiness of the war has been completely
compromised. The ugliness of so-called noble pretexts has been exposed.
Liberation of oppressed people has resulted into more oppression. The
dreams of peace and stability have turned into nightmares of anarchy.
Promise of reconstruction has been forgotten in fulfilling the urge for
misappropriating the resources of conquered lands. The balloon of
democracy has been pricked by victory of Hamas and re-emergence of other
Islamic groups elsewhere.
The Crusaders often talked of winning hearts and minds of the
conquered people, but events have proved that they were never interested in
that. They only want complete submission of the Muslims by destroying
their defence capabilities and capturing their economic resources.
If winning of hearts and minds was desired, it could have been
achieved by spending less than half of the war expenditure on economic
well-being of the targeted people. By doing that, they could not only win the
hearts and minds, but also the souls of many Muslims like Abdul Rahman of
Afghanistan.
Instead, the focus has been on dehumanizing the Muslims. To this
end, Islams concept of Jihad has been dubbed as terrorism to demonize 1.4

billion followers of this great religion. Those waged Jihad against injustice
have been hunted, killed, captured, detained and tortured like beasts.
America blames Muslims for lacking in spirit of peaceful coexistence.
But, the truths of its short history and geographic isolation from the old
civilized world reveal that America utterly lacks the ability to exist with
nations having differences with them. They only know one way; eliminate
the one who disagrees; and their military prowess makes it possible.
The values of Islam have been ridiculed by exercising the right of
freedom of speech. The strength Western media has been fully utilized to
achieve the aim of hurting sentiments of the Muslims. The need for
Enlightenment of Islam has been pressed hard, which could only be
achieved through acceptance of Western values like secularism.
Despite the evil intentions of the aggressors, they have achieved quite
a few successes. This can lead to drawing wrong inferences. It can be said
that possession of military might is more important for winning a conflict
than a noble cause. But, drawing such conclusion will be premature,
because, as already said, the war is yet far from being over.
The most important winning factor has been causing, preserving and
exploiting the disunity of Muslims. The use of enemy within has been the
lethal strategy of the Crusaders. Panjsheris were used in Afghanistan and
Kurds in Iraq.
Now, they plan to use Baluch, Arabs, Turkmen, Kurds and Bahais in
Iran. Similarly, as the war progresses, the ethnic diversity of Pakistan will be
exploited in fulfillment of the evil design. The Long War Strategy clearly
spells out the use of dissidents in achieving the intended goals.
The term dissident, however, does not include Kashmiris, Chechens,
Morros and other Muslim groups seeking an end to oppression. It only
means the groups in Islamic countries which could be useful for further
fragmentation of the Muslim World.
Moreover, rulers in Islamic World have been intimidated and coerced
to support the war on terror unconditionally. This has resulted in yet another
kind of division in the Muslims. The rulers and the ruled have been alienated
from each other which will obviously result in birth of more dissidents.
Despite all the above, Muslim rulers reject the very existence of the
Crusades or clash of civilizations. In fact, they have reconciled with
unconditional submission to the will of the Crusaders. The fear of the
military might of the enemy has blessed them with pearls of wisdom like
5

futility of military option even in opposing invasions and resisting

occupation of Muslim countries.
They only talk of need for dialogue between two civilizations, despite
the ever increasing belligerence of the other side. Consequently, Palestinians
have been left to starve; the core issue has been buried under the debris of
composite dialogue; Chechens have been completely forgotten; Muslim
minorities in Philippines and Thailand have been left at the mercy of the
proxy crusaders.
All this has been paid in advance as price of the anticipated peace.
But, rulers of the Muslim World have ignored the basic fact that there can be
no peace for the one who is not prepared and willing to wage war. That is
why they have lot of roadmaps but no peace. For Pakistan, the peace process
has only yielded onions, potatoes, meat, films, sugar, and cement.
The march of the Crusaders in pursuit of the Long War Strategy
continues. India has been formally inducted as strategic partner to further
escalate the Crusades. They are now galloping towards Iran, which is not far
from Pakistan.
Iran owed a lot to the terrorists who have been and continue fighting
resolutely against occupation of Iraq. In the absence of their resistance, the
Crusaders would have been in Tehran by now and preparing to advance
towards Islamabad, bringing them closer to the achievement of final goal of
destroying military capability and nuclear deterrence in entire Islamic World.
Muslim rulers have ignored the importance of unity and opted for
falling one by one in misconception of being on the right side of the
Crusaders. They are sleep-walking towards their unenviable end. The
situation demands that they must listen to the message of Iqbal Lahori
conveyed a century ago in his poem Jawab-e-Shikwa.

30th March 2006

JAAFARI JAM
Bloodshed in Iraq continued and analysts kept debating for an
appropriate name for the tragedy. Some called it insurgency, or resistance to
occupation; the nobles preferred to term it cross-border terrorism; and
others named it sectarian strife, or civil war.
Jaafari, the Shiite nominee for prime ministers post, resisted
manipulation and intimidation by the occupation forces and refused to step
down. This resulted into political stalemate causing frustration in the
interested parties.
America pondered over Iranian leaders offer. The Islamic Republic
of Iran will hold talks with the United States about Iraq to help the process
of building a government there, and to support the Iraqi people, said
Mottaki. Rice said talks with Tehran on Iraqs slide toward civil war might
be useful, but they would not cover Irans nuclear programme.
There was no progress in Saddam trial. The accused, however, while
appearing in the court on 15th March urged Iraqis to unite and resist the
invaders and their backers. Dont fight among yourselves. He also wanted
his trial to remain in Iraq. Bush however vowed to finish Iraq mission.
In Palestine, Hamas continued facing opposition of the civilized world
and Israel. Even Abbas rejected Ismail Haniyas proposed plan to form
government because he wanted Hamas to be clear on demands of
international community regarding Israel.
Critics of war continued condemning illegal and immoral holy war.
Thousands of protesters in Britain, Australia and Asian countries
demonstrated on third anniversary of Iraqs invasion and demanded pullout
of occupation forces. Iran also kept causing embarrassment to the
superpower and its willing allies by sticking to its right to acquire nuclear
technology.

ROUGH SEAS

Iraq kept bleeding. Two intelligence officers were shot dead in

western Baghdad on 11th March. Next day two blasts in Sadr City killed 36
people and wounded 104 others. Six persons were killed and 13 wounded
when a US convoy was attacked near Baghdad Airport. Two civilians were
killed and six wounded in mortar fire in the capital and three were shot dead
in another incident. Five soldiers were wounded in roadside bombing. Two
policemen were wounded in Dura. Two persons were shot dead in Duluiyah.
One person was killed in Moqdadiya and a police major in Mahmudiya. A
policeman was killed and four wounded in Baqouba. About 80 persons,
including 4 US soldiers were killed on the day.
Police recovered 44 more dead bodies on 14th March from in and
around Baghdad bringing the total to 78 in two days. Two days later,
authorities found 25 more dead bodies. US forces launched biggest postoccupation operation in Samarra area with 1,500 troops and 50 aircrafts.
On 18th March, thirteen people, including six US soldiers, were killed.
The size of operation was curtailed. Next day, four people were shot dead in
drive-by shooting in Mosul. Six persons were wounded in similar attack in
Latifiyah. A policeman was killed by roadside bomb blast in Kirkuk. A
civilian was killed when a left-over cluster bomb exploded in Baqouba.
Seventeen dead bodies were found in Baghdad. US forces arrested 60 people
in the ongoing operation in Samarra area.
Three police commandos and three civilians were killed near Baghdad
on 20 March when a bomb targeted a police patrol. Three persons were
killed in roadside bombing near Kirkuk. Another roadside bomb killed four
persons protecting infrastructure near Musayyib. Gunmen killed one
policeman and wounded another in Amiriya. One policeman was killed and
another wounded by a suicide bomber in Baqouba. Undisclosed number of
dead bodies was found in and around the capital. Nine people were wounded
in drive by shooting nears Karbala.
th

On 21st March, gunmen attacked a jail north of the capital and more
than 30 prisoners were freed. Next day US troops thwarted a dawn attack on
another prison and captured 50 of the attackers.
Ten civilians and 15 policemen were killed and 35 others wounded in
suicide car bombing in central Baghdad on 23rd March. In second car
bombing six people were killed and 20 wounded. Gunmen attacked a
convoy escorting detainees in which one prisoner was killed and eight
attackers were arrested. Roadside bombs targeting police patrol killed four,
including two policemen. Two policemen were killed in gun battles with
8

insurgents. One policeman was killed and a dozen others wounded in

Iskandariyah. Two policemen were killed and two wounded in an ambush
north of the capital. Two persons were killed in drive-by shooting. Three
civilians were wounded in mortar fire. One person was wounded by troops
in Yarmouk. Six dead bodies were found in the capital and eight more were
brought to hospital in Fallujah by US troops. Eight policemen were wounded
in car bombing in Haditha. Three hostages were freed by US troops in
Baghdad after a successful raid.
Bombing outside a Sunni mosque in Khalis on 24th March killed five
people and wounded 15 others. Gunmen killed three policemen in west
Baghdad and three workers of a power station were killed in Taji. Four
persons were killed by gunmen in Saydiyah and one policeman was killed in
roadside bombing. Baghdad police found 13 more dead bodies. Two
policemen and two civilians were killed in roadside bombing in Baghdad.
Ten persons were wounded in mortar fire in Tal Afar. One policeman was
killed and a dozen wounded in Iskandariyah. A Danish soldier was killed and
another wounded near Basra.
On 26th March 30 dead bodies were found near Baqouba. US troops
attacked a mosque near Baghdad and killed 16 people. Next day a suicide
bomber killed 40 people and wounded 20 others at an army base near Tal
Afar. Seven people were killed and 23 wounded in mortar fire in Baghdad.
Three more people were killed elsewhere in the country. Gunmen in police
uniform killed 9 people in Baghdad on 29th March.
Cheney blamed al-Qaeda for fomenting civil war in Iraq, but said their
attempt had failed. Allawi blamed occupation forces for civil war in which
Iraq was losing 50 to 60 people every day. After the raid on mosque, Shiite
UIA said, US forces and Iraqi Special Forces committed a heinous crime by
attacking the Mustafa mosque in the neighbourhood of Ur. Baghdad
Governor refused to cooperate with occupation forces.
On 30th March, the Boston Globe criticized Arab League. The most
dramatic and pathetic failing of the summit was its effort to address the
twin specters of sectarian warfare and Iranian influence in Iraq.

STAYING THE COURSE

On the eve of anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld rebuffed
the critics. Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these
are the words of terrorists discussing Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his
9

associates who are describing their own situation and must be watching
with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years.
Consider that in three years Iraq has gone from enduring a brutal
dictatorship to electing a provisional government to ratifying a new
constitution written by Iraqis to electing a permanent government last
December. In each of these elections, the number of voters participating has
increased significantly
The terrorists are determined to stoke sectarian tension and are
attempting to spark a civil war. But despite the many acts of violence and
provocation, the vast majority of Iraqis have shown that they want their
country to remain whole and free of ethnic conflict Another significant
transformation has been in the size, capability and responsibility of Iraqi
security forces.
Though there are those who will never be convinced that the cause in
Iraq is worth the costs, anyone looking realistically at the world today at
the terrorist threat we face can come to only one conclusion: Now is the
time for resolve, not retreat.
Rumsfeld said a quick withdrawal would tantamount to handing over
Germany back to Nazis. Bush announced that US troops would stay in Iraq
until 2009. The lobbyists like John Hughes kept supporting the contention
of Bush Administration.
While refusing to equate Iraq with Vietnam, he wrote, in Vietnam the
enemy was inspired by a nationalistic bid to seize territory and install a
socialist regime, whereas the enemy in Iraq is motivated by a perversion of
Islamic dogma and a fanatical intent to impose it upon an entire region. (In
Vietnam insurgency was inspired by socialist ideas, but in Iraq it was
perversion of Islamic dogma with fanatical.)
In Iraq the hope of the enemy is that the American public will grow
tired of the continuing casualties and the lengthy political maneuvering over
the formation of a new government, and put such pressure upon the Bush
Administration to withdraw American troops that President Bush would be
unable to resist it.
What Bush has not been wrong about is his passion for the
promotion of democracy in Iraq and countries elsewhere to whose people it
has been denied Victory in consolidating freedom in Iraq would be an
example that would inspire hope for freedom in countries elsewhere in the
Middle East.
10

The consequences of failure would be far-reaching George Bush

may be faulted for some things but not his belief that freedom is God-given
for all people. It is not appropriate that America, founded on the cornerstone
of freedom, should seek to extend it to others presently less fortunate.
Charles

Krauthammer

discussed the difficulties faced in

democratization of Iraq. Now the Kurds have joined with the
opposition Sunni and secular parties to oppose the Shiite bloc. The result is
two large competing coalitions: (a) the Kurd-Sunni-secular bloc, which
controls about 140 seats in the 275-seat parliament and would constitute the
barest majority; and (b) the Shiite bloc, which itself is a coalition of seven
not-always-friendly parties and controls 130 seats, slightly less than a
majority.
But to protect minorities and force the creation of large governing
coalitions, the Iraqi constitution essentially requires a two-thirds majority to
form a government The result for now is stalemate, which could lead to
disaster if the whole system disintegrates because of the impasse. Or it could
lead to a more effective, less sectarian government than Jaafaris.
The main objective of US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who
worked miracles in Afghanistan, is to make sure that the Interior Ministry is
purged of sectarianism by giving it to some neutral figure, perhaps a secular
Sunni with no ties to the Baath Party. Similarly, with the Defence Ministry
which controls the army.
The Kurd-Sunni-secular bloc wants a new prime minister who will
establish a national unity government. Because the United States wants
precisely the same outcome, the Kurd defection is very good news in a
landscape of almost unrelenting bad news.
David Ignatius looked at the problems from slightly different angle.
The countrys political leaders seemed to realize, as they stood at the brink
that they would either come together or Iraq would fall apart. So far they
seem to be choosing unity or at least serious talks about unity.
Khalilzad told me in an interview in his office after Wednesdays
session that the talks had produced tentative agreement on two basic
points: First, the parties endorsed the idea of a unity government that would
include all the major factions. Second, they agreed that this government
should have a top-level national security commission that would include
representatives of all the major political parties. Operating by consensus, this

11

body would frame the broad outlines of policy, subject to the Iraqi
constitution.
The Iraqi political dialogue will move into a new and potentially
fractious stage soon, when the leaders begin bargaining over who will hold
top positions in the new government. Those negotiations could blow apart
the fragile hopes for a unity government.
The Hindu wrote, with ministry-making running into serious
difficulty, Iraqs political leaders have sought to break the impasse by setting
up a National Security Council that will formulate broad policies on security
and economic issues. The hope is that the 19-member Council, which will
represent all the major political formations, will be able to draw the different
sects and ethnic groups into the decision making process. This plan is not
likely to work. While the President and Prime Minister will be the members
of the Council, they will be free to override its collective decisions that
affect their spheres of authority. Since there is no constitutional provision for
creating such a body, non-official members can have no real authority over
the executive branch.

MAKING HAY
Israel kept perpetrating state terrorism with renewed vigour. On 14th
March, Israeli troops broke into Jericho prison, pulled out prisoners and
guards, destroyed much of the building, and captured a group of prisoners
linked to the assassination of an Israeli cabinet minister, who had been
acquitted by a Palestinian court. Three Palestinians were killed in the raid.
British and US had removed their monitoring teams from the site just before
the attack. Palestinians attacked US and European offices in Gaza Strip and
West Bank in retaliation and destroyed British Council building in Gaza
City. Next day, Palestinians held a general strike against Israeli raid.
On 16th March, one Israeli soldier was killed in West Bank. Israeli
troops detained five Palestinians. Six days later, a Palestinian activist was
killed and another wounded in Israeli raid in Jericho. Next day, Israeli troops
killed three more Palestinians in Gaza Strip.
Hamas was able to secure some quiet support from Arab countries,
including Saudi promise on aid. On 18th March, it announced completion of
formation of a government two weeks ahead of deadline. The cabinet will
be approved by Abbas before sending it the Parliament. Senior Hamas

12

leader, Sheikh Mohammad Sayyam, while addressing annual congregation

of JI in Peshawar, said Hamas would continue struggle against Jews.
On 29th March, Olmerts party won in elections. Bush and Blair
wasted no time in congratulating the democratically elected state terrorist.
The winner wasted no time in announcing that Israels borders will be fixed
unilaterally. The same day, Mahmud Abbas led Arab opposition to Israeli
acting premiers plan to set the borders of the Jewish state unilaterally after
his election win. Sudans Omar al-Bashir urged his Arab counterparts not to
succumb to the international communitys efforts to isolate Hamas over its
refusal to recognize Israel, disavow violence and honour previous peace
agreements.
Walid M Sadi advised Hamas to show flexibility. Hamas has to
reckon with the rules of the game, especially state succession rules.
Governments dont go around rescinding past accords by the strike of a pen
or a whisper. There are rules for canceling accords, stipulated either in the
accords themselves or in international law relevant to bilateral and
international agreements.
Hamas knows now the rules of the game. Hamas as an insurgency is
one thing, but Hamas as part and parcel of the established government in the
Palestinian territories is quite another The thorny issue in this vein may
not be recognizing and accepting Israels right to exist or the various accords
already struck between the Palestinians and Israel, but rather to what extent
Hamas would want to impose Islamic fundamentalism and the Sharia on the
Palestinian people If Hamas chooses to depart from this road, then there
could be problems along the way, given the fact that the Palestinians are a
multi-religion people and have got used to separating religion from state
affairs.
Dr Qaisar Rashid had similar advice for both sides. Hamas has to do
something tactical lest the time should seal the famous two-state solution in
the favour of Israel. Simultaneously, cornering Hamas at this juncture may
catapult Palestine into chaos and anarchy. This holds the potential to
destabilize the Middle East region. Hence, the time calls for prudence from
both sides.
Arab News was of the view that showing flexibility and prudence
would be immaterial. This situation might not make much of a difference.
Israel under Sharon was not negotiating with the Palestinians when Fatah of
President Mahmoud Abbas was in charge; now that Hamas is forming a
government, Israel is still not talking to the Palestinians while deciding for
13

itself what and what not to concede. As the outlines of Olmerts plans
emerge, it looks increasingly clear that they do not leave the Palestinians
with much.
The News agreed with Arab News. Israel really has no problem
with either Hamas or Mr Abbas. Its only that its permanent policy is
opposition of peace with the Palestinians, by actively sabotaging it and/or
simply dragging its feet on it. Thats the key to what Israel calls its security,
indeed to its very survival. Mr Sharons stand-in Ehud Olmertis ably
doing both.
The Guardian agreed too; Israel is now demanding of a Hamas
government that it discharge the same role of preventing all physical threats
to Israel that it earlier demanded of the much less intransigent Yasser Arafat
and the PLO, but with absolutely no incentive to do so, except the possibility
that the leavings of a unilateral partition of the West Bank will at some
future point be labeled a state and handed over to them. This is a recipe for
disaster that is obvious to most outsiders but seems invisible to those likely
to form Israels next government.
Jimmy Carter wrote, the pre-eminent obstacle to peace is Israels
colonization of Palestine. There were just a few hundred settlers in the West
Bank and Gaza when I became president, but the Likud government
expanded settlement activity when I left office. Although President Bill
Clinton made strong efforts to promote peace, a massive increase in settlers
occurred during his administration, to 225,000 (not including East
Jerusalem), mostly when Ehud Barak was prime minister. Their best official
order to the Palestinians was to withdraw 20% of them, leaving 180,000 in
209 settlements, covering about 5% of the occupied land.
Its surely disgraceful that the international community
ineffectually stands by as Gazans are deprived of staples, such as bread and
dairy products due to Israels two-month closure of the Kani cargo crossing
between Gaza and Egypt, said Linda S Heard.
Under Article 55 of the fourth Geneva Convention to the fullest
extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the duty of
ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population But who cares
about Geneva Conventions nowadays? Israel has consistently displayed a
total disregard for them with its policy of collective punishment while its
closest ally the US has circumvented them
Surely, the US is angered over the humiliating jail siege, especially
when it, like Britain, signed an agreement guaranteeing the safety of Saadat
14

and others. Youve guessed it. It isnt. In fact, the US has made it clear that it
would veto any UN censure motion.
Makau Mutua wrote, the United States and the European Union
who write the checks for the Palestinian Authority must not cut off aid to
the Hamas government. Doing so is shortsighted, undemocratic, and
foolhardy. Liberation movements normally mellow in the aftermath of
political victory.
Hamid Ansari said, away from the controversy about academic
freedom, an Israeli comment has defined the bottom line in the debate:
Defending the occupation has done to the American pro-Israel community
what living as an occupier has done to Israel muddied both its moral
compass and its rational self-interest compass.
Albadr S S al-Shateri opined that in reality Israel is no longer a key
US asset. Passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a
variety of evils, said George Washington. He added, sympathy for the
favourite nation facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in
cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the
enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels
and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or jurisdiction But,
that is what has exactly happened in the US-Israel special relationship.
Arab News observed, what is disturbing is that the international
community does not seem to appreciate that this new balance offers the
best ever starting point for a real settlement. (As the two hard line parties
from either side are in power.) No one expects the Americans, with their
narrow world view and purblind support for Israel, to recognize the
opportunity.
Raid on jail in Jericho invited widespread bitter criticism. Mathew
Tostevin wrote, Israel acts alone as Western countries acquiesce quietly and
Palestinians scream condemnation in powerless rage The seizure of
Saadat, accused by Israel of involvement in the killing of an Israeli cabinet
minister in 2001, will certainly help interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
ahead of a March 28 election he was expected to win.
Go-it-alone moves are likely to be central to Olmerts plan to set
borders by giving up some isolated Jewish settlements but keeping big
chunks of the occupied West Bank The unilateral approach appeals to
many Israelis cynical about prospects for negotiated peace with the
Palestinians and anxious to fix borders on Israels terms to ensure a Jewish
majority, maximize security and keep all the Jerusalem.
15

While Olmert stresses his aim of setting a permanent border, it is

already pretty much a fait accompli along the line of a West Bank barrier
expected to be completed this year Western diplomats say they see no
signs that Abbas is willing or able to stand up to Hamas in a way that could
let them continue weighty dealings just with him.
That was apparent in the way that US and British monitors, who had
been at Jericho prison under a deal since 2002, left their posts on Tuesday
minutes before Israeli forces stormed in British and the United States had
warned Abbas a week ago that the monitors would go if he did not address
security concerns. Neither country criticized the Israeli raid.
The Palestinian response to the operation exposed the difficulty of
countering unilateral Israeli measures. Abbas and Hamas alike could do little
more than fulminate against the raid, warn of perils ahead and hold Britain
and the United States responsible for what had happened.
Gulf News opined, the barbaric offensive by Israel on the Jericho
prison, literally under the noses of the two western great powers, explains
once again why the peace in the Middle East remains a mirage In
attacking the prison and arresting Ahmad Saadat and others, with perhaps
the blessing of the United States and Britain, Israel again undermined the
leadership of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The attack showed him
unable to protect his people. It also provided Palestinian factions, some of
which do not recognize the peace process, with more reasons to continue
their armed struggle.
Khaled Duzdar was of the view that today we can say goodbye to
the peace process. The political process was finally buried in Jericho and
Israel has no intentions or even interests in finding Palestinian partners.
Israel thinks that it is today in a position where it can impose a solution on
the Palestinians. Israel believes that it is no longer obliged to fulfill its
obligations.
Manal Alafrangi said, it is common knowledge that Israel does
whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Neither the US nor Britain will get
in the way of the Israeli agenda. A close look at the current situation in the
region reveals there is an incessant attempt by the Israeli government to stir
up angry Arab sentiment, undermine efforts to form a viable Palestinian
administration, make Hamas look powerless, and divide Palestinians
amongst themselves.
While Washington and London have cited concern for the safety of
their citizens as the justification, it is inconceivable that either the
16

Palestinians or Israelis would have harmed the monitors. This has been
established by the fact that most Westerners taken hostage during the riots
that followed the raid were soon set free. All in all, the withdrawal of the
supervisors appears to have been intended to provoke Hamas into an
indiscretion, wrote the Hindu.
Seumas Milne focused on British policy. Jack Straw has brought
Britains standing in the Arab and Muslim worlds to its lowest point for half
a century. By withdrawing British monitors from a Palestinian jail in Jericho
on Tuesday, the government as good as handed over to Israel the prisoners
it had made an international agreement to protect. In doing so, it
colluded with its American co-sponsor and at the very least tacitly with
the Israeli occupation regime in an armed attack on the prison and the
seizure of an elected political leader regarded by many Palestinian as a
national hero.
In Israel the Jericho operation is of course highly popular and
regarded as a boost for Olmerts electoral credibility as a tough successor to
Sharon It certainly represents an unjustifiable abandonment of
international responsibilities to protect an occupied people and help achieve
their human and national rights, denied by nearly sixty years. But it is also a
highly dangerous role to adopt in the most inflammatory conflict on the
planet and one which puts at risk the security of people in Britain, as well
as the Middle East.
Andrian Hamilton said, what we have now is a foreign policy that
has lost its way since Iraq went sour and a foreign secretary who chatters
on, putting a burbling, brave face on whatever hes asked to do next.
Whether he believes in it at all no one knows and, worse, few seem
interested in finding out The British this time conveniently scampered
leaving the Israelis to do their worst. It wasnt brave. It breached all our
commitments to the Palestinians. But it did not get us out of a hole.
The New York Times blamed Hamas for the raid. The list of
misdeeds is, as usual, lengthy and widespread. The Hamas should not have
provoked Israel with chatter about freeing Ahmad Sadaat, the head of
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who is being held in the
killing of Rehavam Zeevi, the Israeli tourism minister, in 2001.
Whatever the West might say, for the majority of Muslims, Hamas
remains a symbol of the Palestinian freedom struggle, and is not seen as a
terrorist outfit. This is a difficult realization for the West, but what is more

17

important is to realize that the reasons for this support rest in unfair
international politics and not Islamic ideology, opined Masooda Bano.
Ramzy Baroud elaborated, even Israels initial sense of vindication
has turned sour, as Hamas despite its lack of experience in international
politics has managed to win the trust of various governments outside of
Western hemisphere, and is proving equally savvy in making its conditions
for a final settlement with Israel appear plausible Palestinians have
successfully managed to impress their political will as an irrevocable part
of their regions political reality; a very disturbing realization indeed in the
eyes of the US and Israel who have diligently worked for decades to
undermine the Palestinian peoples aspirations.
But even more dangerous is that Palestinians were quietly reworking
their political and ideological divergence in intense meetings in Gaza, with
the hope that a national unity government would replace the less favoured
option of a Hamas-only government.
Whats troublesome is the fact that a national unity government that
includes the defeated pro-US Fatah movement would deny the Bush
Administration and Israel the chance to scrutinize, undermine and eventually
topple a lone Hamas government.
The Guardian wrote on the outcome of Israeli elections. The new
Palestinian government led by the Islamist Hamas has scorned Mr Olmerts
plans and there are scant prospects of negotiations. But it is worth
remembering that President Clintons parameters the closest the two sides
ever came to a deal assume that the biggest settlements, illegal under
international law, are now immovable, and can be swapped for land
elsewhere.
If that is to happen, there will have to be negations, with international
involvement as laid down by the currently morbid road map to peace.
Unilateralism may work for a while and any withdrawal is better than
none but it can be no substitute for agreement between the two peoples
who are destined to share this one small country.

OPPOSING WINDS
Analyst Daniel Schorr observed that three years after the invasion of
Iraq the rhetoric of victory has been replaced by progress. There is
evidence of real progress, says President Bush. We continue to make great

18

progress echoes General George Casey. Nick Olivari was of the view that
US forces now find themselves potentially caught in the middle of a
sectarian civil war as Shiite militias have stepped up reprisals after years of
Sunni guerrilla attacks.
Phillip Knightly asked occupation forces to be prepared for the worst.
If sectarian violence escalates further, US troops must be withdrawn from
patrol and confined to their barracks and garrisons Mass transport must
be mustered for rapid withdrawal of those troops from volatile cities in
the explosive central region of Iraqin greatest danger
The United Sates lost one war not too long ago in Vietnam.
Conditions are taking shape that could result in the same outcome in Iraq.
Not to plan now for this apocalyptic possibility would tantamount to
criminal neglect on the part of our political and military leadership.
The character of warfare and violence is being transformed. The
warfare of the future is not World War I, or even Korea or Vietnam. It is
Mogadishu and Fallujah low-intensity conflict among tribes, clans, and
gangs. We are not prepared for that kind of war The United States is in
danger of finding combat forces trapped in a civil war that they cannot
prevent, control, or win. Americas army is in danger, and that danger is
possibly just around the corner.
Gary Younge wrote, for if the last six years have proved anything, it
is the limitation of the military might as the central plank of foreign
policy. Indeed, shorn of meaningful diplomacy or substantial negotiation, it
has failed even on its own narrow, nationalistic terms of making America
safer and securing its global hegemony. In short, in displaying his strength in
such a brash, brazen, reckless and ruthless manner, Bush has asserted power
and lost authority and influence both at home and abroad.
As events in Iraq have soured, the ability of the Bush Administration
to deliver on these threats has diminished considerably. With its military
overstretched and its diplomatic goodwill spent, it has been forced back to
the table from a relative position of weakness, because nobody trusts it or
particularly fears it. If anything, both Iran and North Korea have been
emboldened by its failures in the Gulf.
The most important single factor that shapes Americans attitudes to
any war is whether they think America will win, explains Christopher Gelpi,
an associate professor of political science at Duke University who
specializes in public attitudes to foreign policy. Over the past year, the
percentage of Americans who believe the US is certain to win has
19

plummeted from 79% to 22%; those who are either certain it will not win or
believe this to be unlikely have risen from 1% to 41%.
Max Boot opined, it might have been possible to avoid such a costly
and protracted conflict in Iraq if Central Command and the Defence
Department had been better prepared for the post-conflict phase of
operations. But, as we now know, there was a horrifying and inexplicable
failure to undertake adequate preparations for running Iraq after the fall
of Saddam Hussein.
Syrian political commentator Faisal Qassem said the Iraq war,
supposed to herald the demise of autocratic rule in the region, had in fact
bolstered Arab governments which offer their citizens stability, security
and in some cases prosperity. One of the consequences of the invasion was
to give new life to these regimes. Gary Younge wrote, The issue is not
whether the developing world is ready for democracy as the administration
keeps arguing but if the US is ready for the democratic choices made by
the developing world.
Arab News criticized the raid on a Shiite mosque. The only things
that seem apparent from these actions is that the US military, increasingly
concerned at the growth of Shiite militias and their influence within the
Iraqi police and armed forces, are belatedly trying to clip their wings.
The nightly tit-for-tat killings leave a dawn harvest of corpses. The
authorities seem powerless and, as the rest of a local police chief suggests,
there are probably death squads operating among the police themselves
All this is a far cry from Washingtons claims that a reliable cadre of Iraqi
police and army is being created to take over from coalition forces. Indeed
one recent success story of which President Bush boasted the US-Iraqi
military base at Tal Afar near Mosul was yesterday the scene of a suicide
bombing in which over 40 would-be recruits were slain.
Ibrahim al-Jaafari, however, banked a lot on Iraqi security forces.
The long-term solution to this problem will be multifaceted. We must
ensure that all security forces receive proper training and that there is a
chain of command that holds commanders and officers responsible for such
abuses. In addition, the various militias that fought Saddam Husseins
regime honourably must be fully integrated into Iraqs security forces
without concentrating any particular group into any one division.
Many analysts felt that no criticism of Iraq War could be complete
without Bush bashing. Gary Younge wrote With his approval ratings at

20

Nixonian lows and the mid-term elections on the horizon, many of his
fellow Republicans regard him as a liability Stumbling across the political
landscape, rallying support for lost causes, he resembles Ernest Harrowden
in the Picture of Dorian Gray, a character whom Oscar Wilde described as
one of those middle-aged mediocrities, who have no enemies, but are
thoroughly disliked by their friends.
Molly Ivins wrote, it looks as though Bush does better on foreign
policy when hes being an isolationist. Maybe he should just stay at home
and cut more taxes for the rich, or go expose some CIA agent for political
payback against her husband, or just spy on American pacifists.
Maggie Mitchell Salem opined, Bush is not concerned about the
defection of neoconservatives who once backed the war, like William
Buckley and Francis Fukuyama. His problem is with millions of Americans
who are increasingly disillusioned with his leadership.
David Martin described Bushs ability to think ahead, by quoting
some of his remarks in the recent news conference:
The decision to end the US military presence in Iraq will not be his
it will be for future presidents to decide.
As far as the increasing national debt, future presidents will have to
tackle that problem.
Given the precarious state of the economy, it would be irresponsible
of me to interfere at this point in time. I really think its best if
someone else handles it.
I handed out those tax cuts. So how would it look if all of a sudden I
took them back? Again, I think its better that someone new makes
that decision.
Its unrealistic to expect a war on a concept to end any time soon. So
Ill leave that one to a future president to deal with as well.
About drug plan he said, tinkering with the plan now could make the
situation even worse. Best is to let some future president try to fix it.
On hurricane relief he said, wait a few years and see where help is
really needed. Then some future president can clean up the mess.
Lets face it. Anything I tried to do now would just need to be fixed
up by some future president anyway. I think its best for the nation if I
just do nothing.
21

The Boston Globe had polite advice for Bush after he sought
explanation on some issues. But as a first step toward regaining public trust,
Bush would be wise to cast aside his triumph-list rhetoric. Instead of
asserting his will to stay the course and win an undefined victory against
enemies whom he also declines to define, Bush ought to level with the
American public about the complex problems that are so apparent in Iraq.
Bush needs to explain why it is worth trying to help Iraqis avoid
such a war, what he is doing toward that end, and what will happen if the
arduous deal-brokering efforts of the US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay
Khalilzad, fail to forge a national unity government that includes Sunni Arab
leaders as well as Shiites and Kurds. In the same vein, Bush should explain
his design in authorizing Khalilzad to open discussions with Iranian officials
about ways Washington and Tehran may cooperate to prevent the disaster of
a civil war in Iraq.
If the ongoing talks Khalilzad has been supervising among Iraqs
parliamentary factions does produce a broad-based unity government able to
stamp out the insurgency, it will be those friends who, sooner rather than
later, will want the Americans to discuss a timetable for their departure If
it will be necessary to talk to Iraqs politicians about a timetable, it ought to
be possible or Bush to begin discussing that imminent prospect, and other
realities of the Iraq War, with the American public.
Los Angeles Times advised, as it enters its fourth year, the war in
Iraq defies simplistic characterizations from both ends of the political
spectrum. The heroism of US forces and of ordinary Iraqis going about their
daily lives is inspiring. But the future of Iraq remains shrouded in gray
uncertainty.
Arab News counseled him to desist from adopting cheaper ways.
Why were US officials so keen to publicize the attack, releasing video
footage almost as soon as it started? Presumably to convince a weary
American people opinion that there is much more to do in Iraq and that this
is not the time to lose heart and want American troops out.

Brits did not spare the poodle. Andrian Hamilton said, the
charge against Tony Blair is not that he made the wrong judgment but that he
never properly made the judgment at all. He took the gravest decision a
political leader can make and went along with Bush because supporting
America seemed the right thing to do and because it was actually much
easier to do so than to face all the problems that a refusal would have
brought. It would have taken far more courage to refuse Bush than to join
22

him Being prime minister, Tony Blair told Parkinson, it was all about
making decisions. But leadership is about judgment. And where Iraq was
concerned, Blair made the one without exercising the other.
Andrew Murray wrote, both Jack Straw and the US Ambassador to
Baghdad have recently been instructing the Iraqis as to what sort of
government they must form three months after the supposedly decisive
national elections took place.
Reliable estimates for violent civilian deaths under the occupation
range well over 100,000. Faik Bakir, the director of the Baghdad morgue,
has had to flee the country after revealing that more than 7,000 people had
been killed, often after torture, by officers of the US-supervised interior
ministry Britain has reaped the consequences. Most people understand
that the terrorist threat over here is in large measure a consequence of what
we are doing over there.
One of the consequences, both for Britain and America, is that
Washington has been forced to look towards Tehran to help get them out of
the quagmire. Some people have pinned their hopes on Irans offer to
engage in talks with the United States regarding Shiite Islamist groups.
Others see even that as problematic since this might fuel resentment among
Sunni Arabs who already are deeply suspicious of Tehran, wrote Farah Zia.
The US goal is a coalition government that can stay put for next four
years. But the danger, in the words of one Sunni leader, is: We first need to
see if the country can hold together for the next four years before worrying
about whether the government will last that long Iraqs dissolution into
three Iraqis is on the cards and theres little being done to prevent that.

Adamant Iran once again threatened to use oil as weapon. West

wanted 2-week deadline for Iran to stop nuclear work. Iran threatened to quit
world nuclear treaty, but said Russian proposal was still negotiable. On 13 th
March, Tehran vowed not to back down in nuclear standoff. UNSC failed to
forge united stance as China said diplomacy can still resolve the issue.
On 16th March US reaffirmed its policy of pre-emptive and warned
that Iran might pose the biggest threat to its national security. Japan cut oil
imports from Iran over nuclear crisis. Britain was still in favour of drawing
US into talks with Iran. White House said Irans offer to hold talks with the
US on Iraq was probably just a ploy to divert pressure Tehran has drawn
over its nuclear programme.

23

On 20th March, five nuclear powers and Germany kicked off talks to
map out a long-term strategy to deal with Iranian nuclear crisis. Nejad said
Iran will master nuclear technology and talks with US will only be for
Iraqis interest. On 29th March, Big-5 agreed on text of statement urging Iran
to abandon uranium enrichment. Meanwhile, Kurd rebels in West Iran killed
three Iranian Revolutionary Guards in a clash.
Next day the UNSC unanimously approved a statement giving Iran 30
days to abandon its uranium enrichment activities, but did not mention steps
it might take if Tehran fails to comply. Iran rejected UNSC demand. Muttaki
said Iran was prepared for possible sanctions. Iran formally offered
regional venture for nuclear enrichment. ElBaradei said Iran posed no
imminent threat and imposing sanctions on Tehran would be a bad idea.
Kamal Matinuddin was of the view that strategic defiance would
make him (Nejad) a hero in the eyes of many in the Muslim World but may
spread disaster for his nation. Totally halting the process of the enrichment
of uranium would mean capitulation and would be unacceptable to a proud
nation Unfortunately, while a superpower can violate international
treaties and norms and get away with it, weaker nations, which depend on
the international community for their prosperity, cannot do so. Ahmedinejad
must accept this brutal fact of inter-state relations.
Tehran believes it can withstand sanctions by the Security Council.
Iran has several options if the matter is referred to the United Nations
Security Council and sanctions are imposed It can restart enrichment of
uranium on a large scale. It can ban IAEA inspectors from coming to Iran. It
can use oil as a weapon. It can provide active support to those opposing US
and allied forces in Iraq.
Iranian leadership is aware that even the mighty United States is not
in a position to open up another front Iran today stands at a crossroad.
Wisdom not bravado is needed. Its leadership must weigh carefully as to
which path it must adopt.
Howard LaFranchi wrote, as the United Nations Security Council
takes up Irans nuclear programme this week, the US and France will be
standing side by side in opposition to any leniency for the Tehran regime, a
far cry from the bitter antagonism over Iraq that bloomed in the same venue
three years ago.
Pascal Boniface opined, making a comparison between North Korea
and Iran, Tehran has come to the conclusion that a regime with nuclear

24

weapons can keep the US off its shores. The Iranians feel that had Iraq been
in possession of nuclear weapons, there would have been no US invasion.
The winner of this war seems to be Iran. Its strategic influence has
been reinforced, it could play an active role in Iraq and see with great
pleasure the US trapped in the Iraqi quagmire. Due to its involvement in
Iraq, Washington has lost a large part of its bargaining power with Tehran.
Washington never believed in bargaining power, while possessing means to
intimidate and invade.
Farah Zia said, Irans ability to stir Shia majority in neighbouring
Iraq is indeed a US worry. But most important are the natural resources its
endowed with. It is the fourth largest producer of the worlds oil, the second
largest exporter of oil among oil producing and exporting states and
possesses the worlds largest gas reserves. The world desperately needs
Irans crude oil thus allowing it to use it as a weapon. With Tehrans
potential of manipulating oil prices providing a real back-drop, President
Ahmadinejads threat does not seem an empty one when he says: The world
needs the Iranian nation much more than the Iranian nation needs the world.
Patrick Seale said, belatedly and reluctantly, the US has come to
realize that Iraqs neighbours cannot be excluded from what happens in that
country and must be consulted Hardliners in both camps, Iranian
conservatives and American neo-conservatives, neither want dialogue nor
compromise. Israel and its American friends who have great influence in
shaping American policy would like the US to destroy Iran not talk to it.
The US wants to limit the talks to Iraq while, at the same time, continuing to
mobilize the world against Iran to force it to abandon its ambition to master
the uranium fuel cycle. This is a recipe for future.

CONCLUSION
Blair in the company of senior Crusader, Bush is spreading Gods
message: keep the Muslims bleeding. To this end Iraqs ethnic and sectarian
divide has been exploited successfully not only to bleed Iraqis but also
spread it to the entire region as and when required.
Shia-Sunni fighting has helped in saving casualties of occupation
forces by shifting the focus away from them. Iraqs possible dissolution
through Shia-Sunni civil war would create ideal conditions for Israel to
expand and dominate the area, in words of M B Naqvi.

25

The prospects of civil war have been brightened by constant dictations

to the elected members of the parliament and Jaafaris refusal to step down
from the candidacy of premiership. The situation has been muddied to the
extent that even if Jaafari decides to step down the fighting is likely to
continue.
The critics of war have influenced American public opinion against
the war in Iraq, but not to a degree which could force Bush to change the
course. The Crusaders were still working on spreading the holy war to
liberate Iranian people kept hostage by the clerics.

31st March 2006

26

KINGDOM OF KARZAI
Insurgents were able to intensify their operations in 2005. Zawahiri
praised the martyrs in Afghanistan. Foreign Minister, Abdullah accused alQaeda and Taliban of suicide attacks. Afghan defence ministry, however,
denied links between Iraqi and Afghan fighters. The only link was the
inspiration drawn by Pushtoons from Arab Sunnis.
Karzai, while on visit to Devos, said on 27 th January that foreign
troops would be required for about ten years. Expansion of NATO began
with arrival of vanguard contingent from Britain in mid February. NATO
planned to complete its expansion as occupation force by end of the year.
Military chief said NATO troops would be in Afghanistan for years.
Drugs remained a concern of the civilized world. Reports indicated
rise in poppy cultivation and drug smugglers were growing bolder in
Afghanistan. Taliban were linked to drug traffickers and were blamed for
deadly violence.
The ritual of democratization of Afghanistan had been completed.
Karzai boasted that there were no warlords in Afghanistan. In fact all of
them were now wearing robes of Governors or ministers or democratically
elected parliamentarians. That was why Malalai Joya feared assassination.
More than half a million Afghans faced risk of starvation during the
current winters. Poverty and corruption were blamed for fueling insurgency,
yet reconstruction of the country did not receive due attention of the donors.
However, trial of Afghan convert to Christianity under Islamic Sharia law in
March caused concerns to the Christian West and Karzai was forced to
extradite the convert to Italy.

INSURGENCY
Pashtoons continued resisting the occupation of Afghanistan. On 16 th
January a suicide bomber in Spin Boldak killed 20 and injured the same
27

number of people. Another suicide bomber killed three Afghan soldiers and
two civilians in Kandahar; four soldiers and ten civilians were also
wounded. Next day, Annan condemned attacks on Canadians, as injured
Canadian soldiers were being sent home.
On 18th January, Taliban commander, Mulla Dadullah said hundreds of
guerrillas were ready to carry out suicide missions. Ammunition cache was
found on Tajik-Afghan border. Four days later, five captives were got freed
from Taliban in chance encounter with police in Grishik. A police
commander was shot dead in an ambush in Ghazni. Seven Taliban prisoners
escaped from Pul-e-Charki jail. CIA-run secret detention camp was reported
near Kabul.
Taliban attacked an army post in Paktika on 24th January and killed
two soldiers and wounded two others. Next day, a grenade exploded outside
Indian consulate in Kandahar. Security forces arrested two suspected suicide
bombers. Finnish soldiers were attacked near Maimana. An army base in
Uruzgan was subjected to rocket attack. Four Pakistanis were arrested in
Kandahar at an army checkpoint.
A tanker supplying fuel to US troops was destroyed on 26 th January in
Kandahar area. Two policemen were killed in rocket attack on their
checkpoint. Two US soldiers were wounded in roadside bomb blast in
Kunar. Next day a roadside bomb killed two policemen and wounded two
others in Helmand province. Another bomb targeted US-led convoy near
Kandahar.
On 29th January, three more schools were torched in Helmand. Three
policemen were wounded in a bomb attack that targeted a convoy of US-led
forces in southern Kandahar. Next day, an Afghan-US convoy was attacked
southeast of Kandahar. Second US soldier was found guilty of punching
detainees in Afghanistan and was awarded 6-month jail.
Five Bangladeshis were arrested on 31st January with suspected links
to Taliban. A roadside bomb was defused near US Embassy and a Taliban
commander was held in Kandahar province. Next day, three Pakistanis, one
Iraqi and one Iranian were arrested in Nimroz province after crossing over
from Iran. An army vehicle was damaged in remote-controlled bomb
explosion near Kandahar. Nine suspects were arrested.
On 2nd February, a suicide bomber in woman dress killed three
soldiers and two road workers in Khost. It was reported that al-Qaeda
fighters were coming from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. Next day, fighting
between Afghan security forces and Taliban erupted in Helmand province
28

and the coalition ground and air forces were mobilized to bomb the area.
Twenty-three people, including three policemen, were reported killed.
Taliban claimed killing several policemen.
Taliban killed a district chief and two policemen in Helmand on 4 th
February. Twenty-five Taliban were killed in two encounters in Musa Qala
and Nawzad areas and in operation that had started a day earlier in Helmand
province. Two people were killed and three wounded in Kandahar by
remote-controlled explosion. One Taliban commander was killed in southern
Afghanistan near Pakistan border. Next day, a landmine blast killed six
people and wounded four in Kandahar.
Taliban claimed killing five soldiers in Khost on 6 th February. US
forces killed a suspected militant and wounded another at a crossing point on
border with Pakistan. Militants attacked a US patrol in eastern Afghanistan
killing a serviceman. A suspected al-Qaeda suicide bomber was arrested in
Mazar. Three policemen were wounded in Helmand. One person was
wounded by bicycle bomb in Spin Boldak.
On 7th February, a suicide bomber killed 13 people outside police
headquarters in Kandahar. In another explosion a Turkish engineer, an Indian
and his driver were killed in Farah province. Taliban also claimed killing
two British and two Afghans with remote-controlled bomb.
Gunmen burnt down a girls school in Laghman province on 9 th
February. Six people were killed in sectarian clashes. Next day, two Afghan
soldiers were killed in roadside bombing on the border between Kunar and
Nuristan. A convoy sent to their aid was attacked with explosive device
killing six soldiers and wounding seven. Four Canadian soldiers were
wounded when a roadside bomb damaged their armoured vehicle near
Kandahar. Two persons were injured when police fired at anti-Shiite
protesters in Herat.
Two Nepalese were kidnapped in Kabul on 11th February. Seven
Afghan detainees returned from Guantanamo Bay. Two days later, Taliban
ambushed a convoy and killed 8 Afghan soldiers in Helmand; one Taliban
was also killed. Four US soldiers were killed in bomb blast in Uruzgan and
some US soldiers were killed in fighting. One Afghan soldier was killed and
five wounded in roadside bombing in Kunar. Police seized 700 homemade
bombs in Kunar province.
On 14th February, a female MP escaped attempt on her life in Parwan;
her guard was injured. Next day two security agents were beheaded in Farah.

29

Security forces arrested a Taliban commander in Ghazni; a policeman was

shot dead and two soldiers were killed in roadside bombing.
On 16th February, four policemen were killed in an attack by gunmen
and two were killed in bomb blast. Taliban attacked a post in Nimroz and
killed one policeman and wounded four others. Four US soldiers were killed
in landmine blast in Uruzgan. Dead bodies of two Italian aid workers were
found in Kabul. Next day, one health clinic was torched in Helmand.
Two dead bodies were found in a river in Faryab on 18 th February.
Two days later, HBL transport car was robbed in Kabul. Taliban burnt a
school in Helmand. On 22nd February, a bomb attack targeting German
troops in Kunduz killed two persons and wounded 13 others.
Taliban claimed attacking US vehicle in Nangarhar on 23rd February.
Suicide bomber was killed in a failed attack on US convoy near Kandahar.
Taliban killed four Afghan soldiers in Helmand. Two days later, an explosive
device was destroyed in front of Coalition base in Kabul.
On 26th February, two persons were wounded in bomb blast in Khost
and a girls school was bombed. Eight persons were killed in riot in Pul-eCharkhi jail. Sixty Taliban surrendered to Afghan government in Faryab and
Jawzjan provinces. Next day, Afghan prisoners handed over 4 dead bodies as
tension eased in Pul-e-Charkhi jail.
Violence again flared up in the jail on 28 th February. Kidnappers freed
a Nepalese and another died in captivity. Two days later, one Afghan soldier
was killed and two wounded in attack by Taliban in Helmand province. Nine
people were arrested in Herat in murder case of three European aid workers.
On 3rd March, five Canadian troops were wounded in suicide attack
near Kandahar. Police claimed killing eight Taliban and arresting ten in
Helmand; four policemen were also wounded. Taliban killed the chief
government official in Sangin district.
On 4th March, a Canadian soldier was wounded in a clash near
Kandahar; one rebel was killed. In another incident a French soldier and two
rebels were killed. Afghan intelligence agent and four others traveling with
him were killed in roadside bomb blast in Helmand. Taliban attacked Indian
Construction Company in a western province on a road linking Bandar
Abbas; some vehicles were destroyed and 20 Afghan guards were missing.
Injured Canadian soldiers died of wounds on 5 th March. Another
soldier was wounded in attack by an Afghan with an axe. Afghan authorities

30

claimed that 169 Taliban commanders surrendered in Herat, Farah, Ghor,

and Badghis provinces. A UN worker was shot dead in Farah on 7th March.
On 12th March, former Afghan president, Sibghatullah Mujaddadi,
head of a commission for encouraging Taliban defections, was slightly
wounded in suicide car bomb attack in Kabul; four persons, including two
attackers were killed. Four US troops were killed in roadside bombing on a
convoy in Kunar. Afghan official in Jalalabad claimed capturing a Pakistani
three days earlier on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda and Taliban.
Nine policemen were killed on 17th March in a bomb blast in
Maiwand area while escorting the bodies of four Albanians kidnapped and
killed last week. Taliban killed one security guard of a construction company
in Zabul.
On 18th March, Taliban fighters killed Qari Baba and four persons
traveling with him in an ambush in Ghazni area. Qari Baba was a former
governor and Mujahideen commander, who had joined Ahmad Shah
Masood. Three Taliban were killed when they attacked a convoy in Gulan
district.
Taliban raided a police post near Kandahar and killed two policemen
on 21 March and four policemen were missing. A suicide bomber rammed
his car into convey of French troops in Spin Boldak area. Next day, Taliban
claimed killing a US soldier in Kunar.
st

On 23rd March, a police chief was shot dead by his guard in Helmand
province. Coalition forces claimed killing six Taliban in ongoing operation
in southern Afghanistan. Three days later, four Afghans were killed in
landmine blast in Helmand.
Seven Taliban were killed and six Taliban, one civilian and one soldier
were wounded on 27th March in gun battle in Sangin district of Helmand. A
roadside bomb blast killed three villagers and wounded two others in the
same province. Next day, a remote controlled bomb blast in Nimroz
province killed two foreigners and three Afghans employed by a US security
firm.
On 29th March, militants attacked the coalition base in Sangin district
of Helmand province with mortars, RPGs and small arms killing one
American and one Canadian soldier and wounding four foreign and one
Afghan soldier. Occupation forces retaliated by dropping 500-pound and
1,000-pound bombs. The coalition forces claimed killing 12 attackers. Later,
the forces attacked surrounding areas and killed 20 more people.

31

A police director and his brother were shot dead in Helmand on 30 th

March. A remote-controlled bomb struck a police truck in Khost wounding
six policemen. A suicide car bomb attack on a Canadian convoy in Kandahar
failed as attacker detonated explosives prematurely wounding seven
civilians.
On 31st March, Taliban attacked a police post in Helmand province
and lost six men in the process. A suicide bomber was killed in unsuccessful
attempt in Kandahar province. Border police commander accused of killing
17 Pakistanis near Spin Boldak was detained by Afghan authorities.
Unidentified gunmen killed the speaker of Takhar provincial
legislature on 1st April. A botched suicide attack on a US-led coalition
convoy killed the bomber. Security forces shot dead an alleged accomplice
on the bomber. A blast hit US forces convoy in Kunar. Next day, a Taliban
pretended to be a traveler was allowed to stay at a police post in Helmand
and as policemen went to sleep, he killed four of them and escaped.
Taliban shot dead a senior intelligence official in Ghazni province on
5 April. Two days later, a suicide attacker wounded two US soldiers and
one American civilian in Helmand. Next day, a suicide car bomber attacked
a NATO base in Herat killing two guards and one policeman and wounding
seven people, including an Italian soldier. It was fourth attack on foreign
troops in three days.
th

Three US soldiers were wounded in suicide attack on 7 th April and

next day two Afghans were killed in a similar attack in the west. On 9 th
April, two bombings within minutes of each other wounded 11 people in
Kandahar. A suicide car bomber attacked an army base in Paktika and
wounded six soldiers.
Gunmen killed five workers at a clinic in Badghis province on 10 th
April. Two policemen were killed and two wounded in roadside bombing in
Helmand. One driver delivering supplies to foreign troops was also killed.
Next day, seven children were killed in rocket attack in Kunar province.
On 12th April, a roadside bomb in Kandahar killed one policeman and
wounded two others. Police claimed arresting three Taliban in a separate
incident. US-led forces launched major operation in Kunar province and
claimed killing six insurgents. The US military investigated the reported sale
of military secrets smuggled out of its main base on stolen computer discs
and sold in a bazaar. The information included classified military
assessments of enemy targets, names of Afghan officials alleged to be
corrupt and details of American defences and personnel.
32

Three policemen were killed in roadside bombing in Khost on 13 th

April. A suicide bomber attacked a convoy wand wounded three British
soldiers and an Afghan national near Lashkar Gah. Afghan forces killed two
insurgents and arrested two others in Uruzgan. Security forces exchanged
fire with insurgents in a village south of Kandahar. Coalition helicopters
fired rockets at a village where Mulla Omar lived once. Next day, US
military bought back stolen flash drives from shopkeepers.
On 15th April, 41 suspected Taliban and 6 policemen were killed in a
battle near Kandahar. Taliban attacked three police posts in Zabul and lost 14
fighters. Police arrested 15 people. Next day, police killed four suspects in
Zabul. Seven civilians were killed by coalition forces in Kunar. Forces
recovered rockets and landmines and killed an insurgent by artillery fire.
Taliban torched 4 tankers in Maiwand supplying fuel to US forces. Police
arrested 12 people for alleged involvement in killing of a local commander
in Faryab province. British troops vowed to seek and destroy insurgents.
The tactics of suicide bombing adopted by the insurgents caused
concerns to occupation forces. In mid February, Taliban vowed to increase
attacks. Hekmatyar also urged Afghans to expel foreign troops. Forces in
Afghanistan and Iraq shared intelligence to curb suicide blasts and a US
commander warned of more attacks by rebels.
US Institute of Peace said that Afghanistan was more dangerous
than Iraq. US military apprehended negative effects on NATO and other
allies. But, it claimed that Taliban had abandoned attempts at serious
military campaign and were now fighting a propaganda war.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that Afghanistan has not
stabilized since the US-led invasion in 2001 followed by the installation of
the hand-picked Hamid Karzai as president. On the contrary, the situation is
worsening rapidly with increased violence, wrote Burhanuddin Hasan.
He added, the Taliban, meanwhile, have gained control of large parts
of the country. It is feared that Afghanistan may prove to be another Iraq for
the United States. The Pakistan government is also coming under pressure
from the opposition for playing Americas game in its tribal belt where
civilians are being killed almost daily.

OCCUPATION

33

Karzai kept pleading for stay of occupation forces for indefinite

period. In January, he warned that country could again be used as terror
base. Border security conference opened in Qatar on 27th February, to focus
on increase in cooperation with the countrys seven neighbours. On 23 rd
March, Karzai told the opening session of a two-day conference on global
terrorism in Ankara that terrorism is in todays world the worst menace. It is
a challenge that we all have to address together. UN supported Karzais
viewpoint by showing concerns over worsening security.
America continued working for expansion of NATO mandate in
Afghanistan. During third week of January, US officials visited Hague to
discuss Dutch role anew. Pressure was mounted on Dutch government to
deploy troops in Uruzgan. Kabul also appealed to Holland for continued
military support. On 3rd February, Dutch government Okayed troops for
Uruzgan; NATO hailed the Dutch decision to send 1,400 soldiers.
Rest of the execution of expansion plan went smoothly. On 20th
January, Slovakia agreed to send military equipment. In February, Australia
decided to double the number of its troops. Danish Parliament decided to
increase its military contingent. Bulgaria took over command in Kabul. A
contingent of 150 British soldiers arrived for new mission.
On 1st March, Canada took over command in Kandahar and its Prime
Minister slammed critics of Afghan mission. After attacks on Canadian
soldiers, they were ordered to fly only Afghan flag on their posts and
vehicles. Canadian lawmakers mulled review of Afghan mission.
In February, India urgently dispatched 300 commandos to Afghanistan
to provide security to the Indian workers in area between Kandahar and
Iranian border. The area is adjacent to troubled Baluchistan where India has
been supporting the terrorists with money and weapons.
Musharraf had requested America for not allowing few things in
Afghanistan, out of which deployment of Indian troops in Afghanistan was
the only one which had not been disregarded. As Pakistan failed to raise the
issue forcefully at the right level, America was encouraged. During his visit
to New Delhi Bush invited India for more involvement in Afghanistan.
Involvement of NATO in Afghanistan as occupation force faced last
minute opposition from some European countries. William Pfaff wrote about
reservations of France on extension of NATO mandate. France blocked a
proposed NATO-European Union meeting on terrorism because NATO was
not intended to be the worlds gendarme. It is a military defence alliance of

34

equal partners. A French diplomat said, we do not wish to have NATO

involved in everything, or imposing its agenda on the EU.
This is part of Frances consistent opposition to equally consistent
American efforts to turn NATO into an agent of US policy, and to convince
the EU members that NATO should be the exclusive security organization of
the Western alliance, and that Europe should abandon its embryonic
independent security policy and European rapid reaction force.
The Bush Administration is firmly committed to the notion that alQaeda presents a military problem that requires a military solution. It
has to stick to this story or else it has no explanation for the invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq. So President George W Bush keeps making speeches
about al-Qaedas supposed conviction that it could go from success in Iraq to
mobilizing all of Islam, restoring the Grand Caliphate and conquering the
world. Thats a military problem.
He then commented on the reason behind Frances reluctance to active
military role in war on terror. Radicalization of young Muslim militants in
Europe is superficially religious, but usually takes place outside mosques
and more often than not involves individuals with college education. The
sources of extremism are social and political alienation, exclusion (and
unemployment) among the offspring of immigrant communities, but the
international drama mobilizes them.
When Dutch dragged their feet on expansion of NATO mandate, Los
Angeles Times urged them on. The Dutch are usually reliable US allies; if it
had been, say, Belgium getting in the way of a key NATO initiative, it would
have been neither surprising nor significant. So the Dutch reluctance was
especially worrisomeit reflects popular attitudes in the Netherlands, where
half the respondents in a recent poll opposed the deployment and only 38%
favoured it.
It is hard to know whom to blame more for this: the Dutch, who
apparently fail to recognize their own exposure to terrorist threats, or the
Bush Administration. Europeans are concerned about Washingtons
unilateral approach to foreign policy, which has turned Dutch sentiment
against the once-non-controversial Afghan mission But in the end, its
important for Europeans to acknowledge that their continent is not a
secondary theater in the war on terror its center stage.
America was able to get NATO involved in Afghanistan in occupation
role despite opposition from some European countries. The Guardian wrote,
NATO, which until recently was floundering for a purpose in the post-cold35

war world, was left out of the war for Afghanistan and split over Iraq, has
found a challenging new mission. Its 9,000-strong force is about to expand
to 15,000.
Ikram Sehgal did not agree. Anyone with even scant knowledge of
the Principles of War, and it is applicable in terrorism as much as in
modern warfare, will appreciate that Afghanistan is not vital ground, the
Persian Gulf is. Despite all the rhetoric about going the distance it is most
likely that US troops will pull out of Afghanistan in the near future, rather
than out of Iraq. For the moment US troops are being replaced by NATO
forces but what happens when NATO countries begin taking casualties in
some number? The US may keep a token presence in Afghanistan to ensure
Hamid Karzai, who is probably more fearful from his friends than his
enemies, doesnt take off into the blue yonder.
Canadians were the first to stutter after suffering some casualties.
Randi Adamson did not like that. As civilian and soldier deaths continue,
Canada will have to learn to deal with harsh reality. Each death also
brings about a roller coaster of public surveys. One indicated that 62 per cent
of respondents were against Canadas involvement in Afghanistan, once it
was explained that we were there in combat capacity. Have we forgotten
that Canadian citizens were murdered on 9/11? Or that we are included on
Osama bin Ladens list of target countries? If it werent so frightening, the
idea that a nation was surprised its military might be involved in something,
well, dangerous and violent, would be laughable.
The Guardian also found the ground reality a bit harsh. Independent
experts have coined the ominous phrase Iraqisation to describe what is
happening in Helmand and other southern provinces where Canadian and
Dutch troops are based. Suicide bombings, once unknown in Afghanistan,
are on the rise. Incidents are growing in frequency, intensity, sophistication
and cruelty.
It added, NATO insists its personnel will not be destroying poppy
crops which provide up to 70% of the countrys income leaving that to
the Afghan authorities. But it is hard to argue with the notion that the more
successful the deployment is at impeding the drugs trade, the more British
troops are likely to come under attack by those involved. The nexus
between opium and insurgency seems frighteningly clear.
Drugs were still a major threat, according to a US official. The UN
also kept raising alarm about poppy cultivation. In January, Karzai asked his
country to end poppy growing before it ends us and alleged that drugs
36

financed suicide blasts. In February, some of his ministers were reported

involved in drug trade.
Kabul sought help from Thailand to combat poppy cultivation.
Meanwhile, crackdown against drug trade continued. On 23rd February, two
South Africans were arrested with heroin at Kabul Airport and Tajik border
guards clashed with Afghan drug smugglers. Next day, policemen were
arrested with 800kg of heroin. On 3rd April, biggest ever operation was
launched on a notorious drugs bazaar on the border with Pakistan. About a
week later, an Afghan drug smuggler was held in Tajikistan.
Hasty poppy eradication in Afghanistan can sow more problems.
Peasant farmers left without new livelihoods are heeding the call to join the
insurgency, warned Vanda Felbab-brown. A UK parliamentary report said
the same. Attacking drugs trade could make the country more dangerous for
British troops and other NATO peacemakers, and provoke more violence in
the short term.

RECONSTRUCTION
Reconstruction of Afghanistan suffered due to donors fatigue. Annan
hoped that London moot scheduled for 30th January would ease Afghan
concerns. The international conference was expected to unveil a five-year
blueprint on security, human rights, development and narcotics.
On 28th January, Karzai planned to seek $ 4 billion for reconstruction.
Speaker of the Parliament wanted foreign aid going to the government. Two
days later, Karzai discussed countrys needs with Rice. But, wastage in aid
came under spotlight at London conference.
UN chief while addressing the conference said the world has stake in
helping war-ravaged country. Donors pledged $ 10.5 billion out of which US
promised $ 1.1 billion extra and Iran pledged another $ 100 million aid.
Finance Minister hailed the outcome the conference, but UN called for more.
World Bank said investment climate in Afghanistan was improving
and offered $ 30 million for health sector. Despite the pledges, lack of funds
hit food aid programme for Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan planned to
build a faculty block in Nangarhar University. In April Karzai visited New
Delhi and India pledged $ 50 million more for Afghanistan.
During the period completion or start of some development projects
was reported. In February, Indian engineers started building a big dam in the

37

province of Herat. Coalition forces installed windmills in the south. Two

new TV channels started transmission in Herat. In March, uplift plans were
launched in Helmand province. Italian team completed construction of two
schools in Herat.
Kabul continued striving for regional economic cooperation. In
January, Afghanistan promised security of TAP gas pipeline. Iran,
Afghanistan and Tajikistan agreed to sign MoU on electricity exchange.
Afghan refugees problem, however, was yet to be addressed seriously. Iran
took decision unilaterally and announced that all refugees must leave by
September; otherwise they will be treated as illegal immigrants.
Afghanistan continued experiencing the impact of multi-national
inter-action. In February, Kabul deported 47 Chinese women for selling wine
and sex. The worst impact was felt after an Afghan court wanted to try an
Afghan convert to Christianity under Islamic Sharia law on 19th March.
Before the court could formally start the legal proceedings, the
civilized world reacted. On 23rd March, Rice raised concerns with Karzai
over the case. Next day, Howard vowed to press the case with Karzai and
said the case has made him feel sick. Afghan clerics responded by
demanding that the convert should be killed.
On 25th March, Karzai intervened to find an amicable solution.
Supreme Court judge, Maulawizada insisted the court would act
independently. We have nothing to do with diplomatic issues. Well do our
job independently. The very next day the honourable court ruled, the case,
because of some technical as well as legal flaws and shortcomings, has been
referred back to the prosecutors office. Afghans protested against dismissal
of the case and the convert sought asylum overseas.
The puppet regime found the way out. It announced that mental tests
would decide the fate of the convert. On 28 th March, US said it understood
that the convert would be freed from jail. Next day Italian Prime Minister
offered asylum to the convert. He was quietly sent to Italy, perhaps due to
lack of facilities for carrying out mental tests in Afghanistan.
On 2nd April, Afghan clerics threatened violence if the convert was not
brought back from Italy and put on trial. Two days later, Karzai defended
release of Christian convert saying that the judiciary had acted properly and
had not been swayed by the international outcry over the case.
Four years after the Talibans fall, reconstruction efforts in
Afghanistan remain tardy, opined Sukhmani Singh. He added, the plan

38

includes ambitious goals like disbanding all illegal militias by 2007,

enrolling 60 percent girls and 75 percent boys in primary schools by 2010,
and exterminating the opium trade.
He attributed the failure in implementation to indifference of donors.
Two previous international donors conferences ended in pledges of a little
more than $ 14 billion, but eventually less than $ 5 billion was delivered
over the past four years. By comparison, reconstruction budgets in Kosovo,
Bosnia and East Timor were up to 50 times higher on a per capita basis.
Obaid Younossi reflected on the effects of inadequacy of
reconstruction. Talented Afghans are leaving and few are returning from
abroad because insurgent attacks, threats and criminal activities are still
common. As long as Taliban remnants and criminals continue to kill and
terrorize Afghans, the nation will not be an attractive place for young people
to build their futures.
Statements of Rice and Howard were enough to create legal and
technical flaws in the case of the convert. The credit, however, should go
to Karzai and other puppets for finding out legal flaws by diagnosing
mental illness of the convert.
Faiz Gul Awan from Karachi supported Karzais line of action. If we
can welcome a persons conversion from any religion to Islam an act done
on his/her own volition, why cant we respond the same way when a
person converts from Islam to any other faith? He simply wanted to say
that Muslims are intolerant people.
Rahimullah Yusufzai discussed the case in detail. Abdul Rahman is
back in Europe after being spirited from a Kabul jail and flown in secret to
Italy. He had lived for several years in different European countries
including Germany after his conversion 16 years ago in Pakistan. It was as
an Afghan refugee working for a Western non-governmental organization in
Peshawar that he came across Catholic Christian missionaries and decided to
convert.
A number of Western NGOs used to operate out of Peshawar Some
were missionary organizations with Christian agenda. One remembers a few
incidents involving Afghan refugees, who attacked offices and staff of a few
of these NGOsafter accusing them of distributing copies of the Bible and
preaching Christianity The Christian NGOs were accused of exploiting
the most vulnerable among the Afghan refugees through offering of food and
shelter in the hope of converting them to Christianity.

39

There was also the high-profile case of some Christian male and
female missionaries who were arrested by the Taliban in 2001 for preaching
Christianity The Taliban freed them unharmed just before the fall of their
government These and other incidents illustrate that some Christian NGOs
had a not-so-hidden agenda to convert needy Afghan Muslims
The argument could be made that Muslims shouldnt object to the
activities of Christian missionaries when their own preachers, particularly
the Tableeghis, are preaching Islam rather freely in non-Muslim countries
and converting believers of other faiths. However, the fact remains that some
of the resourceful Christian missionaries are trying to exploit poor and needy
people, such as war-affected Afghans, with offers of support to lure them to
Christianity. The Muslim preachers, on the other hand, dont offer any
worldly benefits to their targeted population and instead seek their
conversion by reminding them of God Almightys promise to bless all those
who adopt the righteous path.
On trial was President Karzais beleaguered government, which was
threatened with withdrawal of Western troops and economic assistance if it
failed to save Abul Rahmans life In the end, he tilted on the side of his
foreign patrons because their help was vital to prolong his rule and rebuild
war-ravaged Afghanistan. The Islamic groups felt alienated A resolution
adopted by the parliament said Abdul Rahman should not be allowed to
escape.
The West too was on trial Demands were made to pull out Western
forces and stop economic assistance From President George W Bush to
the leaders of Canada, Italy, Germany and Australia, calls were given for
allowing Afghans to practice religious choice. The unprecedented pressure
exerted on Kabul worked in the end and Italy, ruled by Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi who once remarked that Islam was an inferior civilization
compared to the West, opened its doors to Abdul Rahman by offering him
political asylum.
There was no dearth of offers of political asylum but Italy, home to
the Vatican City state of Pope Paul Benedict who had also appealed To
President Karzai to spare Abdul Rahmans life, was the preferred destination
for the Afghan convert.
The sustained Western pressure on Kabul prompted many Afghan
politicians and analysts to remark that the US and its allies seem to have sent
their forces to Afghanistan to protect their own political and religious

40

interests instead of helping the Afghans to rebuild their lives in accordance

with their own religion and culture.
Ansarullah Maulvizada, the cleric-judge from Afghanistans Supreme
Court who presided the bench hearing Abdul Rahmans case, appeared
adamant initially Eventually, the judge said the case was flawed and
Abdul Rahman wasnt mentally fit to stand trial
True to their word, something was worked out in the end by
declaring Abdul Rahman insane By way of expression, that is how
Afghans or people in our part of the world would react if some in our
families abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity. The converts
father, wife and two daughters had said the same about the convert.
Abdul Rahmans case once more highlighted how religion is getting
overly politicized and affecting relations between countries. Even the
irreligious are being drawn into the battle. It is an ominous development and
provides fodder to the argument that the clash of civilizations is imminent.
Asif Aqeel from Lahore had a reservation on Yusufzais comments.
He suggests that because the Christian missionaries are resourceful they are
taking advantage of the poverty of Afghans. But he did not reveal why those
who convert for bread and butter are ready to die for their faith.
M S Hasan from Karachi opined, his conversion to the faith of his
choice is a matter between him and God. Religion is not a rule. It is the
essence of the faith, which is for an individual to accept voluntarily, and his
subsequent adherence to the spirit and covenants of the faith he or she
decides to follow. Let God be the sole judge and not the fallible mortals.

CONCLUSION
Pushtoons have been resisting occupation of their country against the
combined military might of a superpower, forces from the Christian Club
called, the largest army in the Muslim World and host of warlords siding
with the Crusaders. Barring two or three provinces of central Afghanistan,
Pushtoons inhabit areas close to Pak-Afghan border, which resulted in
constant pressure on Islamabad to do more.
With the expansion of the mandate of the peacekeepers, NATO forces,
along with Australia and Canada, assumed the occupation role in
Afghanistan. This enabled America to save on casualties and also some
troops for next adventure in the region.

41

The case of the convert Abdul Rahman was a clear reflection of

Muslim rulers mindset. All of them, with very few exceptions, are prepared
to exclude religion from state managed affairs, or in other words they prefer
secularism or Enlightenment.
18th April 2006

MAZE OF MILITANCY
Pakistan assured the visiting MPs from UK that it wanted friendly
relations with Afghanistan. During first week of April, Pak-Afghan meeting
was held on enhancing border patrolling. But, tribal Jirgas held in Miranshah
and Mirali demanded end to military operations in Waziristan. Meanwhile,
Karzai visited New Delhi to boost Indo-Afghan ties.
Pakistans endeavours to seek soft image received a major setback on
11 April. A bomb blast in Nishtar Park, Karachi, the venue of Milad-eMustafa conference, killed 57 people, including top leaders of Sunni Tehreek
and wounded about hundred. This incident will be discussed separately.
th

Peace process with India continued, allowing free hand to India to

perpetrate state terrorism in Held Kashmir and furthering its cause of
imposing status quo as a solution. Pakistani rulers were aware of the futility
of the process, but they were helpless because of the pressure of the
Crusaders for improving ties with India.
Situation in Baluchistan remained tense despite some successes of the
security forces. Kabul and New Delhi, with quiet consent of the Crusaders,
were paying Pakistan back some of the cross-border terrorism. Meanwhile,
political activities gained momentum in the wake of Bush visit.

FOR CRUSADERS
Pakistan continued doing more for Afghan peace with renewed
vigour since Bush visit. Following incidents of war on terror were
reported:
Six school children were injured in landmine blast in Shakai on 27 th
March. Rockets were fired at an army post in North Waziristan. Two
days later two FC men went missing in North Waziristan. US
Consulate in Peshawar was temporarily closed over threats.
42

 On 28th March, Ikram Hoti reported that mushroom growth of FM

radio stations, some of which were calling for women kamikaze force.
Tribal Shoora executed alleged murderer in Wana. Two days later, two
tribal residents were killed in mortar attack near Afghan border in
North Waziristan.
FC soldier and a tribesman were killed and four troops and four
civilians injured in exchange of fire in North Waziristan on 2 nd April.
Three members of a family were killed in an explosion in Tank. Dead
body of kidnapped cleric was found in South Waziristan. Next day, 2
tribesmen were killed and 6 soldiers wounded in a clash in Mirali.
Four soldiers and 16 militants were killed in clashes in Shawal Valley
and Dattakhel areas of North Waziristan on 5th April; five soldiers
were also wounded. Next day, death toll in Waziristan operation rose
to 40. FC Fort in Miranshah came under attack; army retaliated with
artillery fire.
Militants fired rockets on FC post in North Waziristan on 9 th April.
Three persons were injured in anti-poppy operation in Bajaur. Next
day two persons were killed in firing near Miranshah. A water-supply
truck of forces was damaged by landmine blast.
On 12th April, some shops were damaged in bomb blast in Bannu. Progovernment tribal elder survived attack in Mirali.
Gunship helicopters attacked a compound in Anghar Killay near
Miranshah on 13th April. ISPR claimed that presence of foreign
militants in the compound was confirmed. Residents of the village
said all the six men and a 40-day-old child were locals. Two tribesmen
accused of spying for US were killed near Afghan border.
Three soldiers were wounded in North Waziristan on 15th April when a
grenade was hurled on their convoy. Soldiers shot dead one of the
attackers. Four FC soldiers were injured in roadside bombing.
Evidence about foreign fighters killed in missile attack on Anghar
Killay still remained inconclusive. Next day, a man accused of spying
for the US was found beheaded in a village in North Waziristan.
VCOAS visited the troubled tribal areas and praised armys role in
maintaining peace in Miranshah. Siraj asked Centre to stop Waziristan
operation. Chief Justice urged the government to deport foreign prisoners as
prisons were overcrowded. On 16th April, Pakistan urged the US to provide

43

ten helicopters and two airplanes to combat terrorism. The same day,
Musharraf reaffirmed his resolve to root out terrorism.
Condemnation of killings near Spin Boldak continued. Hafiz Abdul
Majid Baloch from Quetta wrote, it is the responsibility of the Afghan
government to conduct impartial investigation into the matter and the
culprits involved in the crime are punished.
Pakistan played cool with Afghan provocation, reported Tariq Butt.
Adding insult to the injury was the summoning of the Pakistan Ambassador
in Kabul to the foreign ministry by Afghanistan to protest staging of a
demonstration by people in front of the Afghan consulate in Quetta.
Rahimullah Yusufzai analyzed the change of Afghan Foreign
Minister. Abdullahs replacement by Rangeen Spanta reflected Karzais
attempts to consolidate his hold on the government by bringing his own
men into the administration, contrary to optimism shown by Pakistani
leaders that the move would herald a new chapter in the troubled
relationship between the two neighbouring Islamic countries.
One by one President Karzai has eased out his rivals belonging to
Panjsher Valley. There is no doubt that the US-led Western coalition has
been supporting his moves because it improves their standing in the eyes of
the majority Pashtuns and other ethnic groups angry over the Panjsheri and
Northern Alliance domination in the government.
Incidents like killing of 16 Pakistanis on the basis of personal
vendetta and tribal feuds will keep spoiling the relations between the two
neighbours. They were not Taliban as alleged by killer commander Abdul
Razzaq, because:
The Pakistani Noorzais had gone to Afghanistan to celebrate Nauroz,
the ancient Persian spring and New Year festival, in the northern
Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif.
Taliban were opposed to Nauroz celebrations, which they considered
an un-Islamic festival dating back to pre-Islamic days and expecting
Taliban members and supporters to travel to Mazar-i-Sharif in
northern Afghanistan to celebrate the event and risk their lives would
be foolish.
Pakistanis on their way to Mazar-i-Sharif had stopped in Kabul and
met some Afghan lawmakers known to them. Taliban fighters would

44

not dare to travel to Kabul in a group and meet Afghan

parliamentarians, who are all anti-Taliban.
Pakistans foreign ministry alleged the men were arrested in Kabul at
an unknown time, tied up and brought to Afghanistans border district
of Spin Boldak before killing.
This incident of cold-blooded murders promises more trouble as was
indicated by the anger of the people who attended the funeral. One could
safely predict that the family of Spin Noorzai, who was among those killed
were the most prominent in the group and others, would see to it that
revenge is extracted sooner or later. They are unlikely to be bothered by the
existence of the international border separating Pakistan from Afghanistan.
In the process, the fragile Pak-Afghanistan ties would continue to be
adversely affected by incidents beyond the control of the two governments.
There have been many incidents of settling the personal and tribal
scores of this kind. He quoted the following:
Some warlords have used their American connections to use the US
military and air power to destroy their rival tribes and villages under
the pretext of fighting the war on terror. It should not be difficult for
Bush to understand, who has destroyed a nation to settle Papas score.
Out of 50,000 Pakistanis working for reconstruction of Afghanistan,
many have been arrested on flimsy charges to extract money or to
avenge wrongs committed against Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
Three Pakistanis arrested early last year in eastern Laghman province
for plotting to kill the then US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay
Khalilzad, were poor labourers earning their livelihood there.
The News remained concerned about Pakistani Taliban. Given that
intimidation is a key component of the militants hold on the area, it is near
impossible to gauge the extent to which the rank and file in Waziristan
actually support the Pakistani Taliban. but while there may be ordinary
tribesmen who do not see eye to eye with the militants, there is little doubt
that the latter have the backing of those who count, or vice versa. Whats
more, the traditional balance of power appears to have shifted noticeably
in favour of the clerics. Fridays jirga, for instance, was reportedly
addressed only by the Ulema. The tribal elders or maliks, it is said, attended
but did not speak.

45

Maulana Nek Zaman, member Pakistans National Assembly,

represented the viewpoint of tribesmen in an interview. The operation
against the tribesmen of Waziristan is launched to avenge the historic defeat
that these tribesmen inflicted on British Empire under the leadership of
legendary Faqir of Ippi. The people in Waziristan are being given drubbing
so that they are never able to pose a threat to the policies of the United States
and the West in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the rest of the region. Moreover,
the tribesmen are being targeted for their love of Islam.
Maulana denied presence of aliens in the area. At times President
Pervez Musharraf says al-Qaeda has been wiped out of Pakistan country. If
thats the case then how come it still exists in the tribal areas? According
to my information all the people who have been killed in North Waziristan
were local residents. I can tell you their names, and give details about their
parentage, villages and even graves.
The government is using tribesmen as pawns in its international
politics. Due to this, people are becoming antagonistic towards their own
country I am the public representative but I havent seen any Taliban
controlling Northern Waziristan. There is no parallel government there
Pakistani law is very much in vogue there If political administration has
weakened, it is not because the systems flawed. Its because the armed
forces has off-set its powers. Decisions are being made by the armed forces
and not by the political administration.
I visit two or three madrassas in North Waziristan everyday. All those
madrassas are schools of teachings of the Quraan and the Sunnah. There are
no training camps there and we will not allow any It is totally a false
accusation against our tribesmen and Pakistan. Hamid Karzai is returning,
through these statements, the innumerable favours and sacrifices we did for
the Afghans.
Yes, (the allegations) are true. India and Afghanistans Northern
Alliance do not want to see Pakistan stable and thriving. They have old
scores to settle with Pakistan and, therefore, they are taking advantage of the
situation in Waziristan. They want to pit our army against the tribesmen I
have time and again said that the use of gun power is not the solution.
Shahzadi Beg agreed, in order to protect its own stability and
security, Pakistan needs to play a strategic role now to build a coalition for
peace. The starting point must be to galvanize public opinion for a
disengagement from the psychology of terrorism as the key to winning

46

hearts and minds. Suspects in detention must be reached out to to offer

them the chance to break out of a cycle of violence.
Rahimullah Yusufzai focused on Karzais visit to India. All this
underscored new successes of India in Afghanistan. It is clearly providing
training to Afghan soldiers, policemen and diplomats. The training of
Afghan teachers and rural development workers in India would enable New
Delhi to make more friends in Afghanistan and install its ambassadors in
new walks of life in the country. It is going to be matchless investment on
the part of New Delhi and would create goodwill for India among the
Afghan people.
The message that came out was loud and clear from New Delhi for
Pakistan was the public declaration by President Karzai and Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh to achieve economic integration of Central Asia with
South Asia. Both made it clear that the idea enjoyed active US support. It
wasnt a coincidence that US government functionaries, including Richard
Boucher, were promoting this concept around the same time in different
world capitals.
As the idea would remain incomplete without establishing a trade
route between Afghanistan and India via Pakistan, it was unsurprising that
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked President Karzai to use his good
offices in Islamabad to avail transit facility for his country.
It was obvious from Mr Karzais comment that he would be pressing
Pakistan to allow the desired transit facility to Indian goods coming to
Afghanistan. And he also hinted as to how he intended to go about it. The
Afghan President noted that Pakistan had already allowed transit facility to
Afghan goods destined for India. Now he would offer a deal to Pakistan by
making India agree to allow access to Pakistani goods to East Asia.
It was a clever statement and meant a lot. Pakistan was reminded in
so many words that it would gain access to East Asia via India if it allowed
Indian goods to reach Afghanistan Moreover, without saying so President
Karzai was reminding Pakistan that it needed Afghanistans permission to
use the Afghan land route to do trade with Central Asian countries.
There is little doubt that political problems would delay an agreement
on the materialization of the idea despite the excitement already visible in
Kabul and New Delhi with regard to its potential for bringing economic
benefits to the region.

47

Pakistan, already lagging behind India in the context of its

dwindling influence in Afghanistan, would not want to strengthen New
Delhis hands in increasing an Indian economic presence in the war-battered
country. Two active insurgencies in the Federally Administers Tribal Areas
of NWFP and Baluchistan, both linked to the unstable security situation in
Afghanistan, remain Pakistans utmost worry at the moment. Islamabads
strong belief that there is an Indian hand in the Baluchistan insurgency via
Afghanistan would also be a hurdle in granting New Delhi a concession that
could add to Pakistans woes.
The News wrote about the strike at Anghar Killay with gunship
helicopters. The military and the local authorities are neither confirming nor
denying Atwahs killing, though they are sure that quite a few foreign
militants had been killed in the attack. More so, no authority is ready to
even disclose the nationality of the dead militants, let alone their identity.
The number of dead is also not being confirmed, although some foreign
media reports put it between six and ten.
The daily newspaper added, if the raid was conducted on some solid
intelligence as suggested by the ISPR spokesperson, then the authorities
should have revealed the identity of some of those who were to be targeted.
Just the presence of foreigners is certainly not a sufficient condition for the
attack, as a number of nationals of other countries, who participated in the
Afghan Jihad, continued to stay in the bordering areas and are not
necessarily involved in subversive activities anymore. The paper ignored
an obvious reality. It is not the question of involvement when it comes to
Jehadis. Pakistan cannot refuse to attack when reliable intelligence comes
from the Crusaders.
Report of Behroz Khan explained the helplessness of Pakistani rulers.
The warning, it is said, was conveyed to the NWFP Governor, Khalilur
Rahman and of course the Chief Minister, Akram Khan Durrani, by none
other than President General Pervez Musharraf himself at a meeting in
Islamabad The president told the governor and chief minister that
Americans have warned that those who are hiding in the Frontier and
elsewhere will be bombed out. The president, a source said, actually read
out the exact words sent to Islamabad by the US government.
The clergy-led government in the Frontier, already on the defensive
over its silence on military operations in tribal areas and US air strikes, is
taking the new warning as a declaration of open war Durrani has said that
the US has warned to go after the so-called terrorists even in the settled

48

areas of NWFP, if the attacks against the Americans and their allies
continued in the neighbouring Afghanistan.
What use is our strong defence if we cannot defend our innocent
people against such naked aggression, said Durrani In the wake of the
warning, Pakistan officials foresee that the US air strikes against
terrorists might be more severe than the ones carried out in North
Waziristan and Bajaur agencies.
Incidents of militancy kept marring the endeavours of the rulers for
acquiring the soft image. Following incidents of militancy and
government action were reported:
On 27th March, five supporters of Lashkar-e-Islami or Mufti group
were killed and about a dozen wounded in exchange of fire with FC in
Soor Dand area near Bara.
Next day, 22 persons were killed as supporters of rival clerics let loose
in Khyber Agency. One person was killed and 19 injured in bomb
blast in Peshawar. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal of
four convicts involved in assassination attempt on Musharraf.
On 29th March, mortars and rockets were fired at Mufti Munir
Shakirs headquarter in Khajori Nullah near Bara. Paramilitary forces
were set to attack miscreants in Bara. Harkat-ul-Ansaar leader Fazalur-Rehman was kidnapped from Tarnol and beaten by a gang.
Scare gripped Dir, Swat and Mardan after rumours about the dumps of
lethal ammunition held by gangs of criminals facing armed public
action in a bid to get dozens of kidnapped persons released from their
custody, reported Ikram Hoti on 30th March.
Miscreants attacked a church in Mian Channu on 31 st March. Mufti
left Tirah Valley as FM radio station of miscreants was hit.
Two SSP leaders were arrested in Dera Ismail Khan on 3 rd April.
Three days later, Turabi escaped unhurt in bomb blast in Karachi.
On 7th April, Sonia Naz was beaten to badly and was lying
unconscious in a hospital.
Three days later, the government defended its decision to forcibly
retire squadron Leader Mohsin Hayat Ranjha who refused to trim his
beard on religious grounds. Long beards were identified as safety risk
after attempt on Musharrafs life.
49

 On 11th April, 57 people were killed and about one hundred wounded
in bomb blast in Nishtar Park where Milad-e-Mustafa conference was
being held under arrangements of Sunni Tehreek. The same day,
Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the civilian accused
sentenced in attempt on Musharrafs life. Three days later, ATC in
Karachi sentenced five LJ men to death.

Prejudices of the Crusaders remained in place. A German

magazines report that Pakistan was providing secret nuclear help to Saudi
Arabia; Islamabad denied. Meanwhile, Musharraf and his team mates kept
talking about Islams compatibility with modernity.
During first week of April, Boucher visited Pakistan discussed matters
related to carving of Pak-US strategic partnership, but he mainly indulged in
issuing statements in the context of US interests. Soon after his visit, US
renewed travel warning for Pakistan. Meanwhile, a Pakistani man was
sentenced to five years in prison in San Diego, for his role in a plot to obtain
and sell Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Pakistan, for a change, put aside its desire for soft image and took
courage to probe Swiss visa scandal. On 27th April, Swiss FM assured
justice to visa victims. Next day, Asher Francis was granted bail before
arrest. Meanwhile, a retired official of FIA returned money received from
the victims. Three days later, FIA sent probe findings to Swiss Embassy.
Swiss visa official shifted blame to his seniors. Police decided to seek
cancellation of bail of the accused. He was arrested on 6th April and he
revealed that Swiss Visa Officer Aregor Rudloff was the architect of the
scandal. His arrest was the first ever of any official of a foreign embassy,
charged for harassing the Pakistanis.
Rauf Klasra reported that regular visits by Swiss diplomats to the
police station worked wonders for Asher Francis. FIA inspector probing the
case was recalled; meanwhile, the victims received threatening telephone
calls to stop pursuing the case.
They also accused FIA of harassment and complained that top Foreign
Office officials and law enforcement agencies were suffering from
inferiority complex and lacked the courage to confront the foreign
diplomats. On 14th April, Islamabad Court rejected bail for Swiss Embassy
official. Two more FIRS were registered.
Omar Mirza from New York suggested the way to winning over US.
As US citizen of Pakistani origin, I have a proposal for President Pervez
50

Musharraf on behalf of the United States Pakistan should deploy 50,000

troops in Iraq this year for three years. If it does that, the US Treasury will
pay it $ 10 billion a year for the period. The United States will provide these
troops with Kevlar body armourwe will also sign a free trade agreement
with Pakistan and a treaty on transfer of nuclear technology and reactorbuilding identical The proposal has been approved by the Defence
Intelligence Agency, with which I communicate every day.
The News commented on Bouchers statement, which smacked of
prejudice. That was not the only inconsistency in Mr Bouchers remarks.
He also repeated the US position that the proposed gas pipeline from
Turkmenistan is good, but that from Iran is somehow bad.
Asher Francis would not have dared tampering passports and
harassing women, had he not been an employee of the Crusaders. As regards
the threatening calls to the victims, these could be from some terrorist
group, to defame the civilized people.

PEACE WITH INDIA

Composite dialogue made no progress. Foreign Office said
friendship with India would be only after resolution of Kashmir dispute.
Pakistan and India were reported preparing a joint report for appointment of
neutral expert on Kishanganga Dam; while India continued refusing thirdparty mediation on the core issue.
Confidence building process revolved around Indian ambitions. On
27 March, Pak-India Joint Study Group finalized road map to reach the
Mutual Recognition Agreement to facilitate trade between two neighbours.
Next day, Pakistan agreed to extend SAFTA to include India. At the end of
two days talks in Islamabad, Pakistan and India envisaged air services and
shipping agreements in near future and planned cross-border banking.
th

Pakistan sought Indian help to restore Hindu temple in Katas. It was

all for the soft image. India has no love for such image. It never felt the need
for Pakistans help to demolish Babri mosque. Pakistans security forces
arrested three Kashmiri militants in Tank with explosives. Two sides agreed
to release within 72 hours of arrest all those who cross border by mistake.
However, following actions and statements negative to confidence
building were reported:

51

 Indo-Israel anti-terrorism talks ended in New Delhi on 28 th April. Four

days later, joint naval exercises between France and India started in
the Arabian Sea.
The issue of release of prisoners, which hit humanitarian cords last
August, had been almost forgotten, reported Rauf Klasra.
Sarbajit submitted mercy petition to Musharraf and his sister sought
mercy for her brother. Sarbajits conversion to Islam was reported.
Embracing Islam wont help him, said Law Minister.
On 10th April, Foreign Office summoned the political councilor of
Indian High Commission to protest against the killing of a Pakistani
fisherman on March 18. When asked about the delayed protest, the
spokesperson said it takes time to reach information to foreign office.
Thirteen people were wounded in two bomb blasts in New Delhis
largest mosque on 14th April. Home Minister ruled out terrorism and
said someone had tried to be naughty. The same day, bi-annual
meeting of Pakistan Rangers and BSF concluded in Lahore with India
asking for release of POWs of 1965 War.
The peace process created favourable conditions for Indian forces to
continue perpetration of terrorism in Occupied Kashmir. Following incidents
of state terrorism and retaliatory actions by freedom fighters were reported:
Five freedom fighters were killed by Indian troops on 27th March. Two
days later Indian police claimed arresting top leader of Hizb.
Hizb denied link with al-Qaeda. On 31 st March, three freedom fighters
and a policeman were among five killed in separate attacks in IHK; 11
people were also wounded.
Rebels killed a councilor and a policeman on 4 th April. Five days later,
gunmen killed a family of three in IHK.
Police killed five Kashmiris on 12th April. Two days later, a series of
grenade attacks in Srinagar killed five and wounded 20 people. Yasin
Malik was arrested while leading an anti-election protest.
Nine persons were held on 15th April over serial grenade blasts. Next
day four people were injured in grenade attack in Srinagar. A senior
Indian general claimed that fighters were giving up arms and were
returning to their homes.

52

Kashmiris kept urging the world for peaceful resolution of the

dispute. Mirwaiz urged India to reciprocate Pakistans initiative to solve
Kashmir issue. He later accused India of turning IHK into a killing field.
JKLF demanded complete freedom. Hizbul Mujahideen said, the fact is that
the ongoing dialogue process between India and Pakistan is useless, futile
and a waste of time.
After having advised the Pakistani people not to be India-centric, the
rulers started crying over biased nuclear deal with India. Kasuri said, IndoUS nuclear deal can spoil security in the region and also adversely affect
non-proliferation efforts. Shaukat termed Indo-US nuclear deal a serious
issue and sought level-playing field in nuclear cooperation. Karamat assured
that Pakistan was committed to non-proliferation.
On 10th April, spokesperson of Foreign Office complained that
information United States had shared with Islamabad regarding its civil
nuclear agreement with India was different from the agreement that actually
materialized. She did not give any reason as to why should US share
information with Pakistan.
Next day, National Command Authority meeting, chaired by
Musharraf, expressed concern over US-India nuclear deal and resolved to
maintain credible minimum nuclear deterrence. Subsequently, Musharraf
begged the visiting Senator for access to civil nuclear energy.
In the wake of criticism, Manmohan said its for US to take nuke deal
forward. Rice warned Congress against tinkering with US-India nuclear
deal. India warned that failed nuclear deal would hit ties with US, while
rejecting US suggestion on defining minimum nuclear deterrence. Shyam
Saran assured Indians that nuclear plan wont be compromised by the deal.
Indian plan to drag the composite dialogue to impose status quo as
permanent solution had been winning support of peace-loving Pakistanis.
Malik Waqas from Rawalpindi wrote, if no territorial changes are made, the
best that can be expected is for Pakistan to stop offering support, and for
India to improve the law-and-order and human rights situation. That will
defuse the situation, and support the ultimate formalizing of the Line of
Control. India has been working precisely for that.
M B Naqvi spelled out one-sided peace-plan in some detail. The
strength of the Indian army, plus its nukes, has posed new problems. Does
the present deadlock with India serve any Pakistani purpose? The answer is
none at all. Other peaceful means of persuading India to be more
forthcoming have to be found: it means offering something that will be of
53

real utility to India for which reason it will like to accommodate Pakistan
to whatever extent may be useful to it.
After granting India the right to accommodate Pakistan to its sweet
will, he added, what remains possible and desirable is to create conditions
in which Kashmiris can get the substance of azadi by creating conditions on
which India would cede it. What legal shape it will take can be left to the
good sense of the Indians and Kashmiris. Pakistanis, as freedom lovers
and friendly outsiders, should only encourage and when asked advise.
India has been dropping hints that it is ready to make a deal with
Pakistan and Kashmir provided Pakistan accepts the Line of Control. Other
goodies like agreements on Siachen, Baglihar, may be Sir Creek are also
hinted at. Accepting Line of Control as a legitimate international border is
hard for the Pakistani state as it is now constituted. But it can refuse to
accept it as a de jure solution, though it should accept LoC as the de facto
border. There are good reasons to believe that the arrangement agreed at
Simla was intended to do just that on both sides. India can happily live with
it so long as Pakistanis do not keep on stirring trouble through terrorism.
Strenuous anti-India propaganda being counterproductive needs to be
curbed.
Hafizur Rahman said, if we could digest Bangladesh, why say no to
sovereign Kashmir? Sentimentalism apart, we in Pakistan havent given too
good account of ourselves as a democratic country, sensible enough to
manage our own affairs without making a hash of themwhat then shall we
give to the Kashmiris; a weak and corrupt administration, an undependable
political system, a distorted democracy, a press ever fearful of state
oppression, ethnic strife leading to intolerance and bloodshed, and promises
of periodic martial law?
Afzal A Shigri focused on the issue related to people of his area.
CBMs are becoming the norm in our relations with India. Let us hope that
the Line of Control in Kargil will also be opened, and the people of the
Northern Areas will benefit from the fruits of this soft border policy and the
divided families will be able to visit each other.
Sushant Sareen from across the border felt that Pakistan was left with
no choice except pursuing the peace process. Neither India nor Pakistan
appear willing to risk the progress that has been achieved in the last two
years. This implies that the two countries are no longer hostage to
Kashmir. Equally important is the fact that the political leaderships of the
two countries have invested a lot in the peace process and cannot afford a
54

reversal of any of the steps that have been taken so far. Interestingly, even
the agencies seem to have lost interest in using Kashmir as a battlefield.
With India being accused of sponsoring the insurgency in Baluchistan and
Pakistans tribal areas and Pakistan being accused of involvement in Delhi
and Varanasi bomb blasts and terror attacks on Ayodhya and Bangalore, the
scene of action appears to be shifting away from Kashmir. In the
circumstances, it is quite natural for the Kashmiri leaders to be rankled by
the loss of the veto power that they enjoyed for decades. But it is time they
understand that India and Pakistan are moving in a direction where Kashmir
will no longer hyphenate their bilateral relations. Essence of the statement
was that Pakistan was gradually willing to forget Kashmir.
I Hassan desired peace through unilateral de-escalation. Since it is
now realized that a war with India is no option and since to impoverish
people further is no option either, the only option available is deescalation. This means that the defence budget has to be reduced. In fact, it
has to be reduced to the extent that we have a small army mainly for internal
security and for maintenance of law and order. The biggest defence we can
have is an educated population that has a stake in the country.
He and other enlightened moderates should not worry on this count,
because the Crusaders have already implemented this idea in Afghanistan
and Iraq. Doing the same in other Islamic countries is on their agenda.
Therefore, in the prevalent scenario, he should have pondered about other
options like rendering the border with India ineffective in the spirit of
Akhand Bharat, or Pakis should follow the Afghan who converted to
Christianity. NAA RAHEY BAANS, NAA BAJEY BANSARI.
While the enlightened and moderate rulers and analysts seemed to
have reconciled with the inevitable, Sayed GB Shah Bokhari from
Peshawar observed that those who have been quite vocal about Kashmir
were also guilty of ignoring it. During the recent 3-day Jamaat-e-Islami
international moot, near Peshawar, several foreign Islamic scholars were
invited by the Jamaat having paid their huge bills for international travel,
and their boarding and lodging, from Zakat funds. While the foreign
delegates used the Peshawar forum, set up by the JI, to plead their cases of
individual countries and gave a generalized reference to the plight of
Muslims, the burning core issue, faced by the host country, the Kashmir
dispute, was absolutely ignored.
Manmohan Singhs offer of peace treaty was aimed at formalization
of the status quo, but Dr M S Jillani had no suspicions about Singhs

55

sincerity. Offer of a treaty of friendship by India and the amount of sincerity

reflected by it, could only be made by a person like Dr Manmohan Singh
A brilliant scholar with humane qualities would not indulge in point
scoring or staging deceptive games, in spite of political exigencies of his
ambience. One, therefore, would like to trust him regardless of
apprehensions creeping up as a result of decades of mistrust and altercation.
The extremist religious elements both in India and Pakistan have
played a major role in perpetrating bitter memories of the past and creating
new grounds for airing differences in culture and life styles of Muslims and
Hindus. He was wrong. In Pakistan religious elements have played no role
in starting three wars fought by two countries within a quarter of century and
also in media offensives launched before and after each war.
Imtiaz Alam expressed similar views. Instead of rejecting Mr Singhs
offer of a peace treaty, which he has proposed as a culminating point and not
as the starting point of peace process, Islamabad can propose a road to
arriving at the peace treaty. Without making our other relations with India
hostage to the Kashmir imbroglio, we should create a greater trust and
understanding to resolve the Kashmir dispute at the same time.
Mir Khalilur Rahman expressed optimism. Pakistan and India are
now moving towards sustainable peace and friendship without having signed
any peace and friendship treaty. The first prerequisite for peace and
friendship is normalization. The two countries have overcome some major
impediments successfully for achieving that goal.
Kamal Matinuddin had some reservations. An atmosphere of trust
and confidence has to be built up. Hopes of lasting peace will only rise when
talks of mutual balance force reduction to begin to take place. If these steps
are not taken Manmohan Singhs smoke signal will vanish into thin air on
both sides of the international border which be made while flagging off the
bus from Amritsar to Nankana Sahib.
Shireen M Mazari had held on to upright stance on the issue. The
latest reflection of this (Indian deviousness) is the so-called peace and
friendship treaty offer to Pakistan. The mala fide intent behind this offer
is only too transparent, on two main counts. The first, of course, is that this
is yet another attempt by India to avoid moving on the core conflictual issue
Kashmir.
India will try anything that will allow it to retain the status quo on
Kashmir. But do the Indians the Indian Prime Minister take us all for fools
who cannot understand that peace can only come when conflicts have been
56

resolved? His suggestion that Kashmir should not prevent the two sides from
signing a peace, friendship and security treaty certainly seems to suggest an
assumption, otherwise rationality would point to peace following conflict
resolution.
The lady, however, was wrong regarding her remarks of fools. Plenty
of them exist even in the garb of experts and intellectuals, who are willing to
give in for peace far more than she apprehended. She added, so Indian
treaties of friendship and peace do little to resolve outstanding conflicts and
are primarily intended to allow for great Indian interventions in the
affairs of its neighbours.
It is time for Pakistan to be more assertive in terms of its national
interests and the security of its citizens and its territory. This requires a
greater assertiveness within our immediate neighbourhood, where a
frustrated and weak Afghan government is killing innocent Pakistanis in acts
which can only be described as deliberate, premeditated murder; and where
a US-bolstered India is seeking to bring Pakistan into its hegemonic
embrace.
Analysts kept discussing implications of Indo-US nuclear deal.
Sandeep Pandey wrote, while the India president, taking a cue from the
Indo-US deal, has laid emphasis on energy security as a priority for the
country, we are not even able to provide the most basic food security. The
country has just passed its first employment guarantee act, which is only a
guarantee in name. People continue to live under conditions of
malnourishment and extreme poverty. The nuclear weapons or/and energy
programme is not going to make these people, who will easily outnumber
the class which use electricity from the nuclear power; any more secure.
PK Iyengar and M Gupta opined. regardless of the exact nature of the
safeguards, the scientific community in India is extremely upset and alarmed
that the autonomy of these institutions may now be severely eroded and
their research programmes subjected to the worst external interference.
The New York Times wrote, with the exception of a few die-hard
protectionists, most Americasapplaud President Bushs desire to build a
stronger relationship with India But the notion of advice and consent must
include the ability for lawmakers to balk when the price for something
becomes too high The central question is not the importance of India,
but rather the importance of deterring a global nuclear arms race.
In Pakistan peace-lover I Hassan urged Pakistan to shun nuclear
weapons. There is NO defence against N-bombs. The only defence is not
57

to have any bombs because having them invites a retaliatory response. Our
people have been fed this doctrine of retaliatory response. Khusro Mumtaz
supported the argument with slight difference. Combined, India and
Pakistan are already in position to blow each other up a few times over.
Adding more bombs wont add much more strategic value for Pakistan,
especially if the aim is to create deterrence.
The News, however, foresaw arms race. The Americans appear to be
a hard wall to reasoning and are defending their ill-conceived move through
silly arguments. Creating a security dilemma and instability in South Asia is
not something Americans will like in a region that is already a breeding
ground for extremism. At the same time, Islamabad will be justified to
invest more resources in meeting its security needs especially when
American support will put India on a fast track of technological
improvements in the strategic sector It is still not too late for Washington
to re-design its framework for South Asia basing it on the principle of
equality for both India and Pakistan. Unless that is done, prospects of
durable peace in South Asia are dim.
Burhanuddin Hasan agreed by saying that no matter what Mr Bush
says the fact is that Pakistans relations with both the US and India has
been dented. It is also feared that the ongoing dialogue process between the
two countries might be adversely affected, retarding the progress made so
far towards the solution of the Kashmir problem.
M Ismail Khan opined that even the solution of Siachen dispute
would be difficult, unless Pakistan caves in under pressure. In recent
times, Pakistan and India have been seeking a negotiated withdrawal from
the glacier. So far, the discussions have been unsuccessful due to a variety of
reasons among them Indian insistence to formalize the current troops
positions as an original line of control and Pakistan has been insisting on
withdrawal of troops from both sides to the pre-1984 positions. But during
recent demarches Pakistan has shown an understanding in acknowledging
current troop positions, which has opened possibilities for withdrawal in the
near future.
Anees Jillani refrained from criticizing anyone for the deal. He
advised Pakistanis to care for the self-respect as Indians do. He narrated
an incident of Purana Qila during Bushs address, told by Amit Baruah of the
Hindu. Some journalists were approached by one of Bushs secret service
agents to vacate the seats they were sitting on as they were meant for the
Presidents entourage. They told the guy to buzz off saying that this is not

58

White House but Purana Qila in New Delhi in India. The security guy
backed off and the Indians kept sitting. Who would have done it in our
midst?

HOME FRONT
At home the government had done well in managing the calamity in
earthquake-hit area as was evident from merging of FRC into ERRA and
removing both the generals before the start of expenditure-heavy
reconstruction phase. The issue of construction of dams had also been
disposed off along with debris of the devastated areas.
Bush visit infused life in political activities. On 27th March, Raja
Zafar announced that Nawaz would be in Pakistan before elections. PPP and
PML-N held meetings in Dubai and London respectively. These meetings
resulted in speculations by political analysts.
Mullas in NWFP took a step quite unusual in Pakistani politics. Four
MPAs were disqualified and expelled by the clergy-led provincial
government. Disqualified MPAs took the matter to the court which brought
the chief minister and the governor face to face, as the latter refused to
summon the assembly session requisitioned by the treasury benches. Matter
was resolved only after intervention by the Prime Minister.
During first week of April, Rashid announced that Benazir and Nawaz
would have no role in 2007 elections. Prime Minister during visit to New
York said that general elections would be held in 2007, but decision on
caretakers would be taken later. ARD representatives met Boucher and
warned of poll boycott sans Benazir and Nawaz.
Second week started with Rashid saying Musharraf will stay
president after polls in 2007. On 14th April, ARD and MMA agreed on
several points pertaining to a Charter of Democracy in a meeting held at
PML-N secretariat in London. In Dubai, PPP meeting chaired by Benazir
rejected electoral alliance with ARD. Two days later, Rashid reiterated,
President in uniform is must for the country.
Khurram Dastgir Khan portrayed bleak picture of the prevailing
situation before urging restoration of democratic institutions. The principal
issues are all anti-something, i.e. anti-terrorism, anti-fundamentalism, and
anti-nuclear proliferation. Until some positive foundations are established,
the connection will remain shallow and personality-oriented Once the

59

US need for military cooperation ebbs, the indispensability of the present

regime will face the consequences of its poor economic, political, social, and
foreign-policy governance.
The foreign-policy front is bleaker still. The US-dictated
monomania of anti-terrorism has distorted Pakistans relations with the rest
of the world. Japan and the EU see Pakistan not as an opportunity but as a
threat a smoldering fire on which aid-water must be thrown. Muslim
countries despise our craven attitude to the United States. China helps us
like a tycoon helps a poor violence-prone cousin. Iran would rather trade
with India than us. Last but the most infuriating for the regime is
Afghanistan. Instead of being grateful, the Karzai government is openly
undermining Pakistan.
The only way forward is to restore sovereignty over Pakistan to the
people The President has to take the first step by trusting the constitution,
not his uniform. He must rise above personal dislikes, allow all exiled
leaders to return home, and hold a verifiably fair and scrupulously impartial
general election in 2007.
Ikram Sehgal wrote, this significant naivety is common to all leaders
of military background; they sincerely believe that as long as they
themselves remain honest they can conveniently overlook corruption among
their politicos in pursuance of the greater national objective, inculcating
democracy as required by the comity of nations. This is an incorrect
supposition.
Pervez Musharraf is smart enough to understand that those who
flatter him publicly do so for a deadly purpose so that he becomes
dependent on their loyal services. The track record of such people is no
secret, will it be any surprise if those loyal to each and every regime before
Musharraf will also be loyal to whomsoever comes in the future?
Mir Jamilur Rahman said the same thing milder tone. The PML and
some of its coalition partners are persistent in their demand that President
Musharraf should remain in uniform at least as long as he is the president of
the country. These people are not his well wishers. They are only concerned
with their own political power.
Masooda Bano opined, the political culture in the country is
anything but democratic. All decisions are made by General Musharraf and
not the parliament. Most important of all, General Musharraf and the PMLQ are clear about intention to let him remain president and chief of army
staff, even after the 2007 elections. With some of the most tainted feudal
60

politicians as his advocates, General Musharraf can hardly claim to have

established democracy in the country.
Shafqat Mahmood said, given this scenario, Musharraf will have to
put all eggs in the Q League basket and that cannot be a pleasant prospect
for him. It means having to rig and manipulate and although this was easy in
the past, it may not be so in 2007.
We are in political logjam. Musharraf cannot break it without major
concessions and the political parties cannot because they have their political
positions to think of. This is the time for judiciary to step in It should
summon Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif back because
there are many cases pending which require their appearance. Whatever the
outcome of judicial matters, it will help to break the political impasse in
which we find ourselves.
Yusufzai, while appreciating action against certain MPAs, said, while
it would be worthwhile if all the political parties took action against their
erring MPAs, there is also need to make those Senators accountable who
bought votes and openly indulged in horse trading. If the political parties
are able to identify and punish their vote-selling MPAs, it should also be
possible to find out and seek accountability of vote-buying Senators.
Farhad Khan from Peshawar, however, demanded disqualification of
more cleric PMAs. As publicly reported, there is a total number of eighteen
PMAs belonging to the MMA, who are involved in selling their votes,
therefore, there should be accountability for all the eighteen legislators
involved in the horse-trading; if the MMA wants to assure their members
and the public at large to support it in the upcoming election.
Chris Cork dwelled on this issue. Politicians are consistently
exposed as fiscally fraudulent, institutionally deceitful, self-serving, and
downright corrupt whether they be to the right, left or centre of the political
spectrum. They are shown to be open to bribery and coercion, buying votes
for favours from grassroots to boardroom, they regularly circumvent or
evade justice and even if brought to book wriggle, squirm and fangle their
way out of ever having to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth so help them God.
Public confidence in this bunch of shysters and purveyors of quack
remedies has understandably plummeted across the globe. The numbers
turning out to vote in democratic elections in many nations are declining
with every passing poll as voters stay at home in droves, disillusioned and
bitter.
61

Political decay in terms of public confidence and probity, both in the

democratic institutions themselves and in those who are the products of the
electoral process; is more advanced in some countries than others, and
Pakistan is in the van of the charge towards mediocrity and the debasing of
political coinage with impure metals The question inevitably has to be
do the people of Pakistan really want a democracy or are they content
forever to live under a soft military dictatorship?
Shafqat Mahmood addressed all the political parties. In our case,
transparency of politicians is extra important because democracy in our
country rests on such flimsy foundations. We keep attacking the military and
the current ruling General for this or that folly. We also question, and I will
do so again in this column, their incomes and expenditures. But, this
exercise cannot be credible, if we ignore or mollycoddle any information
that comes out in public about the leaders of our major political parties.
Our entire stand or democracy will be undermined if we do so
Democracy, to state the obvious, is not just fair and free elections, or
fundamental rights, or supremacy of civilian institutions. It also means
transparence and public accountability of those who hold high political
office.
Iqbal Mustafa saw the solution in direct elections. Those who can
deceive God can surely subvert democracy in any form. We need to create a
constitutional environment that reconditions peoples behaviour patterns and
moral ethos. The process can begin with creating more provinces of
relatively equal weight and introducing direct elections for every executive
office president, PM, senators, chief ministers, nazims, the lot. The
loyalties of directly elected executives will lie with the electorate and not
with those who pulled strings to bring them in office.
The News did not like Bouchers statement on elections. Pakistanis
also want next elections to be free and fair. But for Mr Boucher to voice
that hope at his press conference at least suggests disdainful condescension.
It would be almost like a comment by Pakistans minister of state or foreign
secretary at that time on the controversial vote-counting in the US
presidential elections of November 2000, which enabled President Bush to
squeak through in the contest with Al Gore.
London gradually became hub of anti-Musharraf political
activities. But, the same day PPP leaders rejected election alliance with
MMA. They did not want to be bracketed with fundamentalist mullas with
the aim of gaining sympathies of the civilized world. Therefore, the ongoing

62

honeymoon of opposition parties of all shades, based on one point antiMusharraf agenda, would end after elections irrespective of the outcome.
The News wrote, the PPP and the PML-N are the parties that are least
likely to be able to conjure up the confidence essential for a cohesive
political force. Both parties have historically traded opportunities to
collaborate with the army to marginalize one another the potential
repetition of such duplicity cannot be discounted by either side. Thus, a
majority of the time and effort will be spent reconciling the paranoia in both
camps, constantly distracting from more important issues. Perhaps both
would be better-off competing individually.
Mir Jamilur Rahman rued out political deals before next elections.
The PPP would suffer a huge credibility gap if it were to enter into a deal
with President Musharraf. Its newfound camaraderie with PML-N would
come to premature demise. The ARD would be shattered, physically and
spiritually. Therefore, neither the government nor the PPP stand to gain from
the deal. To be sure, deals are only successful when made between equally
strong parties. We have seen how swiftly and comprehensively the LFO deal
between the MMA and the Government was interred because its signatories
were unequal, one very strong and the other weak.
Some analysts indulged in predictions. Khusro Mumtaz wrote, the
will of the people? Thats not a concept that exists in Chaudhry Shujaats
and the ruling juntas version of democracy. Elections (with the results
largely predetermined, of course) are just a tool to legitimize the
conferring of power to a chosen select few.
Once Musharraf makes sure of his next term of office for five years
the world will see the US claiming that in Pakistan civilian control over the
Army and national affairs has returned in Pakistan, opined M B Naqvi.
Burhanuddin Hasan urged Musharraf to remain firm on his decision
on participation of ex-prime ministers. To allow discredited leaders like
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to contest elections will not only be a
travesty of justice but may also plunge the country into political and
economic chaos. Their political parties, or whatever is left of them, should
consider looking for alternative leaderships to take command.
Ghazi Salahuddin said, many of us tend to invoke the legacy of Ziaul-Haq to explain our political derelictions. More relevant now is to think
about the Musharraf legacy How come a professedly liberal leader has
effectively bolstered religious parties and has nurtured more militancy? Why
has he defied accepted democratic norms to put together a coalition of
63

political turncoats and traditional exploiters of the rights of the people? Why
have his policies widened the rift between the smaller provinces and the
centre? Why have the statistically certified economic achievements failed to
raise the spirits of the poor and the downtrodden? And so on.
Mehdi Hasan observed that it would not be smooth sailing for
Musharraf in coming days. Musharraf was indeed more powerful a couple
of years ago as Pakistans cooperation was the strategic need of the United
States War on Terror. With Taliban and al-Qaeda power in disarray, thanks
to Gen Musharrafs campaign against them, US has some other ideas
Now the White House officials and US senators and congressmen have
started talking about the need for fair and free elections in a transparent
manner in Pakistan.
The recent statements by US officials certainly point towards a
visible shift in American stance regarding democracy in Pakistan. In the
context of universal diplomatic norms, these remarks are a violation of
diplomatic values and an interference of an outside power in the internal
affairs of a sovereign state. The administration so far has not lodged any
official protest against this interference.
The talk of elections and approaching end of the presidential
term has unnerved the political turncoats Opportunists who had
changed their loyalties are more vocal and support a president in uniform
more than the president himself Musharraf is sure to win the next
elections if he so intends, of course with the support of the present ruling
arrangement. The opposition parties with their present structural and
organizational setups pose no threat to him.
If Pakistan were a democracy, the provincial government of
Baluchistan, Sindh and NWFP would have been sacked long ago. The
federal minister of interior and heads of institutions responsible for the
security of the public would have resigned years ago accepting their
responsibility in failing to provide a peaceful and secure environment to the
people. But this would have happened only if there was democracy and
rule of law in the country.
Nationalist Baluch sardars kept perpetrating terrorism in
Baluchistan. Following incidents of terror and counter actions taken by
the security forces were reported:
On 29th March, troops recovered arms and ammunition from Bugti
Fort and Pirkoh.
64

 One Person was killed and 4 wounded in two separate landmine blasts
in Bolan and Dera Bugti areas on 31st March. Terrorists blew up four
electric towers disrupting supply to entire northern Baluchistan from
Kalat to Zhob. Railway Bridge near Harnai was damaged in a blast.
On 1st April, six people were injured in blasts in Quetta and Dera
Bugti. Electricity supply to northern Baluchistan remained suspended.
Ten people, including 7 levies men were killed and 28 injured in
blasts in Kohlu and Bolan districts on 2nd April.
An official was killed in mine blast in Dera Bugti on 4th April. Cache
of arms was recovered from a house in Dera Bugti. Next day, security
forces arrested 8 militants with arms and ammunition in Suhbat Pur.
On 7th April, at least 14 people, including 7 security forces personnel,
were wounded in exchange of fire in Wad tehsil of Khuzdar, landmine
blast in Pir Koh, and grenade attack NGOs hospital in Chaghai. BNP
activists kept Quetta-Karachi highway blocked in protest against
besieging of Mengal sardars in Karachi.
Two groups of Bugti tribesmen, 40 in all, surrendered on 8 th April.
They confessed damaging gas facilities on orders to Akbar Bugti.
On 9th April, a bomb blast in Kohlu killed two persons and wounded
18 others. One girl was wounded in firing near Dera Bugti. Five FC
personnel were wounded in an explosion in Mand. A blast also
exploded in Gwadar. The government banned BLA.
Two persons were killed and 2 injured in landmine blast in Sui area on
12th April. These men had surrendered recently. FC posts in Kahan
came under rocket fire and a post in Chashma area was fired at with
small arms. Four government officials and 3 employees of National
Bank were wounded when their vehicles were attacked in Tali Mat.
Gas pipeline in Loti was blown up. A bomb exploded in Mastung.
On 13th April, three security men were wounded in landmine blast in
Loti area. Two days later, FC post was attacked in Dera Bugti. Mengal
feared that agencies might kill him.
Terrorists damaged a railway bridge in Harnai section and a
transformer near Mandblo on 16th April.
Simultaneously with military action, the government took pacification
measures. During visit to Baluchistan on 29th March, Musharraf asked every
65

district nazim in Baluchistan to submit Rupees 100 million development

schemes. Three days later, DCO Dera Bugti claimed that the writ of the
government has been restored in the area.
Another batch of 725 Masoori Bugtis returned to their ancestral area
during first week of April. The sub tribes expelled by Akbar Bugti were
persuaded to return with the hope of diluting the Nawabs authority over the
troubled area. During the period two militant groups surrendered for the first
time out of which some were hardened criminals. Their cases were referred
for review by the local Reforms Public Committee to establish those who
worked under pressure of sardar and those who are hardcore criminals.
Meanwhile, the government remained firm on Akbar Bugti. An
official said, there will be no leniency or mercy of any kind. Security
agencies will completely wipe out the terrorists in a couple of months
Akbar Bugti said Baluch people are his judge and jury. The Governor said
talks only if Bugti gives up heavy arms.
After the siege of Mengals house in Karachi, Muhammad Ejaz Khan
reported; in Baluch dominated areas in Khuzdar, Kalat and port city of
Gwadar, routine life was paralyzed and traffic on Quetta-Karachi highway
remained suspended in protest against besieging of the residence of BNP
chief Sardar Akhtar Mengal in Karachi.
Mengal suggested there was no need for holding talks to resolve
the issues of the provinces. All that was needed was the implementation of
Lahore Resolution of 1940 that clearly stated that Baluch, Pashtoon, Sindhis
and others should be given rights and control over their resources. A day
later, District Nazim Khuzdar, Sardar Naseer Ahmed Mosiyani tendered
resignation from his office in protest against the attitude of Baluchistan
government and deteriorating law and order situation in the district.
Mariana Baabar interviewed Mushahid Hussain, who explained as to
how India was fomenting trouble in Pakistan via Afghanistan. The
Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad and their embassy in Kabul are
used for clandestine activities inside Pakistan in general and FATA and
Baluchistan in particular.
Indian diplomatic and RAW officials have significant ingress in the
Afghan ministry of tribal affairs, and are exploiting it to conduct covert
activities RAW has established its training camps in Afghanistan in
collaboration with the remnants of the Northern Alliance. Approximately
600 Ferraris, or Baluch tribal dissidents, are getting specialized training to
handle explosives, engineer bomb blasts, and use sophisticated weapons
66

India has invested heavily in its old connections with the leaders of
the erstwhile Northern Alliance. It has sizeable support in Afghan
parliament. Before the Afghan elections last year, the Indian ambassador
called the Northern Alliances major leadership at his residence and paid
them a handsome amount to run their election campaign.
The Afghan Police, the Border Security Force and customs officials
facilitate the visit of Indian diplomatic staff and intelligence agents to border
areas, and help them hold meetings with dissatisfied pro-Afghan dissidents,
anti-state elements and elders of the area.
The News suggested dialogue with Baluch warlords without surrender
of the terrorists or their weapons. Now dont the two statements, the one
about dialogue and the other about surrender, contradict each other? The
situation calls for much more clarity; we can either have a dialogue or fight
till surrender. Lets hope it is dialogue.
A few days later the daily newspaper wrote, stability in Baluchistan is
important for the strategic and economic interests of the country. It should be
restored at all costs. The government should not make it an issue of ego, and
should approach the disgruntled sardars who have the means and capacity to
maintain stability in the province. Ikram Sehgal had the views to the
contrary. In Dera Bugti force is required to first restore the rule of law and
remove the state within a state, the government has done well to bring
back the Bugti exiles home.
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar warned about the power of the nationalists.
Long gone are the days when people thought that the politics of the
religious right constitute a genuine threat to the status quo. It is now
increasingly apparent that the MMA & co are, as the popular saying goes,
the armys B-team. So that leaves the nationalists, and would be hard to
argue that they represent, at the present time, the only form of politics that
stands to challenge the state.
Whether or not one can get to the bottom of who supports the
nationalists, the fact of the matter is that they now face a situation that
requires them to adopt a more radical stance vis--vis the state than at any
other time in recent memory. And this is not the fault of any external
force, but instead the only response can be expected to a state that insists on
wielding a big stick.
If, for the sake of argument, one were to agree that the current
manifestation of Baluch nationalism is just a handful of sardars, which is, at
best, a highly dubious proposition, then who is responsible for this state of
67

affairs?... What is happening in Baluchistan extends far beyond a few

sardars and the development magic wand is exactly what the Baluch do
not want. If the state refuses to accept the reality of the situation, the rest of
us should before its too late.
Banning of BLA was something too little too late. It invited the
obvious comments from the News. Undoubtedly, the BLAs engagement in
terrorism, or so the government says, has only hurt the cause it has been
struggling for. At the same time, its banning is perfectly under the available
statutes; but this not the solution. The state should have engaged the BLA
and other disgruntled Baluch groups in talks to find a negotiated settlement
to the issues. Policy and legal measures that exclude, alienate, and isolate
never lead to durable solutions. Such steps only take situations. Such steps
only take situations to a point of no return.

CONCLUSION
Bush visit yielded the results desired by Washington. Pakistan has
been coerced to do more in the context of peace and security of Afghanistan.
Resultantly, blood-letting in troubled tribal areas has increased. Despite such
commitments to war on terror, Pakistans endeavour to acquire soft image
has been lost in the maze of all kinds of militancy, but so far only Islamic
militancy has been targeted resolutely.
Peace process failed to make any inroads. Pakistan had no choice but
to pursue peace on Indian terms as directed by Bush Administration.
Pakistans peace offensive to discredit India was stalled by Manmohans
offer of peace treaty.
In the wake of Bush visit London became the hub of anti-Musharraf
political activities. It seemed that Musharraf was gradually losing his
usefulness for the Crusaders, but end of his rule was not yet evident.
Baluchistan remained in the grip of terror-turmoil. Banning of BLA
was criticized by some quarters, but no such views were expressed when
dozens of groups, including those who supported just cause of the
Kashmiris, were banned to serve interests of the Crusaders.
20th April 2006

68

DEMOCARIC DILEMMAS
The Crusaders in their war on terror faced dilemmas posed by the
democratically governments in Iraq, Palestine and Iran. In Iraq it related to
the candidate for prime ministers slot who was suspected of forming a
Shiite government with inclination towards Iran. Therefore, he was accused
of weakness and incompetence.
Hamas-led government in Palestinian territories refused to accept the
terms dictated by the Crusaders. It was accused of militancy to justify the
tightening of economic screw; whereas Israel was provided free hand to
perpetrate terrorism against hapless Palestinians.
The government led by Nejad refused to give up Irans right to acquire
nuclear technology. The Crusaders accused him of nourishing a desire to
possess nuclear weapons and thus threatening regional stability and
American security. But, they seemed confused about the appropriate line of
action to tackle the self-created monster.
Bush Administration remained in the focus of critics of the unjust war
waged on holy pretexts with evil intentions. The conduct of war by the
junta of neoconservatives was widely criticized. Despite the opposition,
Bush and his pack of war-mongers remained determined to continue the war.

ROUGH SEAS
Insurgency-turned- civil war continued unabated. On 31st March, six
people were killed northeast of Baghdad when gunmen opened fire on a
minibus. Next day at least 22 people were killed in violence in Baghdad and

69

Basra, including a Sunni Sheikh. A US military helicopter crashed during a

combat air patrol.
US military announced death of six of its soldiers on 2 nd April,
including two pilots of a helicopter that was shot down by insurgents the day
before. Six insurgents died in accidental explosion while preparing bomb. In
Baghdad 40 dead bodies were found. Six men were killed in a blast in the
capital. Rebels killed three Shiites in Balad Ruz. In Baqouba a Shiite
mosque was blown up. A policeman was shot dead in Khadra. A government
official was kidnapped in Mustansiriyah and two brothers of a Sunni
politician were also kidnapped in a separate incident. The government
claimed arrest of an aide of Zarqawi.
On 3rd April, four US soldiers were killed in hostile fire in Anbar
province while five US Marines drowned and three were missing when their
truck rolled over in flash floods in the same province. A truck bomb near a
Shiite mosque in Baghdad killed 10 people and wounded 30 others. Another
explosion in Sadr City killed two civilians and wounded six others and four
persons were wounded in Karradah in a separate attack. In Basra, a navy
officer, two policemen, two workers at an electrical plant, and a boy were
killed in drive-by shooting. Gunmen killed two truck drivers in Nibaie
working for US troops. An Imam was shot dead in Kirkuk. In Baqouba a
man was killed by roadside bomb and a woman was shot dead. Three dead
bodies were found in Baghdad.
At least 21 people were killed across Iraq, including 10 in a car
bombing in eastern Baghdad on 4th April. Another 25 people were wounded
in the explosion. Eighteen more dead bodies were found. Five more persons
were killed next day.
On 7th April three suicide bombers attacked Baghdads Baratha
mosque killing 79 and wounding 164 worshipers. Shiite imam of the mosque
Jalal-ud-din al-Saghir, an MP of UIA and known for his fiery sermons
promulgating the rights of Iraqs Shiite majority, said, this is a filthy war
against the Shiites. Four Iraqis were killed in Baqouba. Three US soldiers
were killed elsewhere. Next day, a car bob killed six people and wounded 14
others in Musayyib. In all 13 people, including a US soldier, were killed
across the country. On 9th April 16 Iraqis and a US soldier were killed.
Three civilians and a policeman were killed in roadside bombing in
Baghdad on 12th January. At least 16 people were killed and 30 wounded in
car bomb attack near a Shiite mosque. Next day, 15 people were killed and
22 wounded in car bomb attack in a market in Baghdad. Brother of a Sunni
70

politician and his companion were killed in drive-by shooting. Thirteen

persons were killed elsewhere in the country. Two US soldiers were killed
and 22 wounded in three different incidents.
On 14th April, a suicide car bomber attacked a police station in Mosul
wounding at least 17 people, including 12 policemen. Next day, three Iraqi
soldiers were killed and three others wounded in roadside bombing in Dora.
One civilian was killed and two others wounded in cross fire between army
and insurgents in Fallujah. One police director was shot dead in Basra.
On 16th April, 45 people including four US Marines were killed and
43 others wounded across the country in last 24 hours. Gunmen in police
uniform kidnapped 15 persons in Baghdad and 29 policemen remained
unaccounted for when their convoy was ambushed by militants near a US
military base north of the capital.
Nearly 20,000 people have been kidnapped in Iraq since the beginning
of the year alone, according to a report published on violence in the war-torn
country. This should provide a guideline for estimating the number of Iraqis
that might have been killed since the invasion.
Saudi Foreign Minister said that the violence in Iraq could only be
described as a civil war and Arab States should try to bring Iraqis together to
stop the strife. Meanwhile, Turkey started experiencing the spell-over the
war in Iraq. On 2nd April, violent pro-Kurdish demonstration was held in
Istanbul.

STAYING THE COURSE

There were no signs of an end to occupation of Iraq. Philip Stephens
wrote, the president has not changed his mind. He is as firm as ever in his
conviction the America must use its power for a moral purpose. The
Crusaders continued working to sideline Jaafari. Some politicians, including
a former Shiite minister, were coerced to join ranks of those demanding
Jaafari to step down. Khalilzad urged the Iraqis to speed up the process of
democracy to prevent the country from sliding into civil war.
The framework for the unity government, as outlined by Khalilzad,
was described by David Ignatius. The Sunni leaders have accepted that the
new government will operate under the Iraqi constitution and that it will be
based on the results of last Decembers election, both of which reflect the
reality that the Shiites are Iraqs largest religious group. The Shiites in turn,

71

have agreed that the new government will be guided by consensus among
the factions. And they have agreed to checks that will, in theory, prevent the
key security ministries from being hijacked by Shiite militia groups.
To implement this consensual approach, the Iraqi factions agreed
on two bodies that werent mentioned in the constitution. They endorsed a
19-member consultative national security council, which represents all the
political factions. And they agreed on a ministerial security council, which
will have the Sunni deputy prime minister as its deputy chairman. Shiite
leaders have tentatively agreed that the defence minister will be a Sunni.
And for the key job of interior minister, the dominant Shiite faction, known
as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, appears ready to
accept the replacement of one of its members by an independent Shiite,
perhaps Qasim Dawood, a man acceptable to most Sunni leaders.
The analyst, however, apprehended that this framework might not
guarantee the achievement of the desired goal. The real brawl lies ahead
over who should be prime minister. Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime
minister, is fighting to hold on to his job.
The Guardian expressed similar views. Even if the impasse can be
broken reasonably soon, none of this bodes well for the future. Once a new
government is in place, the political timetable calls for four months of
debate to clarify Iraqs constitution the signal for yet another round of
interminable haggling and stand-offs. All the divisive questions that are
fudged in order to get the constitution approved last year will return:
arguments about federalism and Kurdish autonomy, the role of Islamic law,
apportionment of oil revenues, to name just a few.
Patrick Cockburn observed that the Shiite leaders suspect that the
US and Britain backed by the Sunni Arab states of the Middle East want to
rob them of their election victory on Dec 15 last year by forcing them into
an unrepresentative coalition.
Jonathan Steele wrote that the titanic challenge of ensuring political
stability had barely begun to be addressed. Relations between Iraqs
majority Shia community and the Americans are at the lowest point
since the fall of Saddam Hussein. The group that stood to gain most from his
departure is turning on the USsuspicious of last autumns American tilt
towards the Sunnis, Shia leaders feel the US is undermining their election
victory by interfering in the choice of prime minister.
When these Byzantine games are over, and a new government is
finally formed, the real difficulties will begin. For the new parliament to
72

reach agreement and pass legislation on how to divide oil revenues, and how
to define the role of Islamic law will be even harder than choosing a prime
minister. Confronting the militias and re-establishing order are titanic
challenges.
The Washington Post wrote about joint venture of Mr Straw and Ms
Rice. Judging from their public remarks, Mr Straw and Ms Rice ended their
visit hoping that Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani would use his authority
to force an end to the power struggle. Despite the large US and British
military forces still deployed in the country, US and British leverage over the
Shiites isnt enough to change the situation on its own.
Already US pushing of the Shiite by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad
is prompting a backlash and bringing American forces to the edge of
renewed conflict with the radical Shiite movement of Moqtada al-Sadr
The Bush Administration nevertheless has no choice but to keep pressing
for a political accord. The question remains whether other outside influence
can be brought to bear.
Commenting on Rice-Straw joint venture to break political deadlock,
the News wrote, what rankles with the two powers actually isnt the
impasse or the sectarianism, but the fact that the main supporter of Mr alJaafari is cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who leads an effective anti-US militia. Mr
al-Jaafaris choice may not be the very best, but the reasoning behind it
appears to be perfectly sound.
In 2003, Mr al-Sadr and some undesired Sunni Arab groups had
been banned from the former Governing Council by L Paul Bremer, the then
US proconsul of the country. I look at them as part of Iraqs de facto reality,
whether some of the individual people are negative or positive, Mr alJaafari said in an interview with the New York Times on March 29. Anyone
who is part of the Iraqi reality should be part of the Iraqi house. And he
blamed Mr Bremers decision for the situation of (the groups) becoming
violent elements. Trouble is that President Bush and Prime Minister
Blair dont accept reality; theyre in the business of creating one, like
Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction.
Its impossible to predict just now, even for Ms Rice and Mr Straw
themselves, how things will turn out after their unprecedented joint
intervention. But the pattern in Iraq is starting with the invasion of March
2003 for the situation to deteriorate after such intrusions.
Arab News urged Iraqi politicians for the same. Al-Qaeda and its
henchmen are stepping up their barbaric campaign of violence as if they
73

sense that the moment has almost come when they can tip Iraq into the even
bloodier chaos of full-fledged civil war Indeed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
and his fellow terrorists know that the formation of a functioning
government will represent an important defeat for them and will spell the
beginning of the end of their savage campaign.
As a worsening wave of violence engulfs Iraq, politicians must now
agree perhaps within days on who will do what in a coalition. Put
starkly, if it is a choice between the fate of one man and that of an entire
country, there ought to be no contest. By standing aside now, Jaafari would
earn nothing but credit that he could undoubtedly count on for his political
future.
Marwan al-Kabalan observed that Americas arms twisting was
working. It is absolutely clear that Rice has played a direct role in the
splintering of the Shiite bloc when she convinced other Shiite leaders that
al-Jaafari is unfit to assume the post given his failure to win enough political
support to form a government since his nomination three months ago.
The Bush Administration seems to have finally realized that Iranians
have built up massive power in neighbouring Iraq and that this power will
allow them to undermine the whole US plan for the country It would also
be used by Tehran as a bargaining chip over its nuclear programme, another
troubling issue in the relationship between the two countries. By splitting
the Shiite coalition, Washington seeks to circumscribe Iranian influence
in Iraq and weaken its position before talks between the two countries start
over Iraq some time this month.
Moqtada al-Sadr and SCIRI are the largest parties of the Shiite
coalition and are strongly pro-Iranian. Al-Jaafari or not, the Rice visit
seems to have paid off well for the Americans. It may lead to changing the
political map of Iraq and subsequently undercut Irans influence.
This could come about in two ways. First, the dispute over the
countrys top job between the two big Shiite factions; al-Hakims party, the
SCIRI and the party led by al-Sadr carries with it the possibility of armed
violence. A fight between them will certainly weaken Irans stand in Iraq.
Second, if the dispute between the Shiite factions does not lead to
armed conflict, it will certainly lead to redrawing Iraqs political coalitions.
This was clear when al-Sadr denounced al-Hakims initiative to open a
dialogue between Tehran and Washington over Iraq last month This will
lead to finishing off the dream of Iran and the most powerful Shiite cleric

74

in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani; both have been working hard to
ensure that the religious Shiites assume power in Iraq through elections.
Sadakat Kadri commented on the ongoing trial of Saddam. To
laud Saddams trial as a humanitarian milestone is a politicians lie, Iraqs
invaders opened up an inferno, including notions of justice as foreseeable as
they are loathsome. The prosecution will never symbolize the rebirth of the
rule of law. The hanging to come will signify nothing but sleight of hand. A
more fitting tribute to the tragedy unleashed by Operation Iraq Freedom
would be Saddams head, shot through the temple and stuck on a pole

MAKING HAY
Israel continued perpetration of terror against Palestinians.
Following incidents of Israeli aggression and retaliatory action by
Palestinians were reported:
On 31st March, a commander of the Popular Resistance Committee
was killed in Gaza City in Israeli air strike.
Two days later, western news agencies tried to create alarm about
Islamic militancy by reporting that Hamas government had allowed
beards in Palestinian police.
Four Palestinians were killed in Israeli attack on 7 th April. By next
day, 14 Palestinians were killed and 21 wounded in Israeli air strikes
in Gaza Strip.
On 9th April, one Palestinian was killed in tank fire in northern Gaza
Strip. Three days later, two Palestinians were killed in air strike in
Gaza Strip. Fatah offices were also attacked.
During the week ending 16th April, more than 19 Palestinians were
killed, including 3 children; 94 wounded by gunfire, including 32
children; 70 civilian arrested, including 6 children, by Israelis. While
the Israeli forces continued shelling of the Gaza Strip, the rest of the
Palestinian Occupied Territories was imprisoned under a total siege.
On 17th April, six people were killed and dozens wounded in Tel Aviv
when a Palestinian blew himself in a market. Israel said, we will have
to take action in the coming days to prevent future attacks.
Two Palestinians were wounded in clash with Israeli troops in West
Bank on 19th April. A teenage Palestinian with explosives was held in
Nablus.
75

The West on the behest of Israel enforced sanctions against

Palestinians to punish them for voting for Hamas. On 7 th April, EU
announced the suspension of direct funding to the Hamas-led Palestinian
Authority. Hamas condemned aid freeze.
On 8th April, Abbas warned against Israels plan to unilaterally fix its
borders in the West Bank as it would only lead to more bloodshed within 10
years. Next day, Israels Security Cabinet recommended cutting all ties with
Palestinian government and ruled out peace talks with Abbas as long as the
Islamic militant group refuses to renounce violence.
On 18th April, Israel warned that a new axis of terror, Iran, Syria and
the Hamas-run Palestinian government, is sowing the seeds of the first world
war of the 21st century. Palestinians accused Israel of escalating military
campaign using indiscriminate force to kill civilians and entrench its
occupation.
Palestinians started facing financial hardship despite promises of aid
by Arab countries. Adel Zaanoun reported that Gaza commerce was dying
amid financial crisis. On 15th April, Palestinian security men protested over
delay in payment of their salaries. Barghouti asked Abbass Fatah Party to
open talks with Hamas to find a way to resolve the crisis faced by the
Palestinians. Haniya remained firm. He said attempts to isolate Hamas
government will fail. Later, he added, dignity is more important than
dollars, and refused to condemn Tel Aviv bombing. On 20th April, Hamas
appointed top militant, Jamal security forces chief.
Meanwhile, Russia pledged emergency aid to Palestinian Authority.
Iran announced $ 50 million donation to Hamas government. Irans Foreign
Minister called on Muslims to support new Palestinian government. Arab
funds decided to give $ 50 million aid to Palestinians.

Criticism of Wests refusal to recognize Hamas-reality continued.

Philip Stephens wrote, the jolt to the strategy delivered by the victory of
Hamas in the Palestinian elections is still evident. Mr Bush is said to be unrepented about his insistence the elections should be held. Yet there is
precious little evidence that the administration knows how to deal with
the new political realities in the region.
The Crusaders remained arrogant as could be seen from remarks of
Amos Oz. Is there anything the new center-left Israeli government can do
for peace, as long as Hamas does not want any peace with Israel? It can

76

take the issue upstairs talk to the bullys parents, as it were. In our case,
the bullys family is the Arab League
The words bully and bullys parents used for Palestinians and Arabs
are worth noting. In fact, the bully is Israel and its parents are the US and
Europe. There is a marked difference; Israel has the real and caring parents
and Palestine has step-parents. He added, it is not unthinkable that a deal
between the pragmatic Israeli and Arab governments can be reached
and then brought before the Palestinians for a referendum.
The parental encouragement would further embolden the rogue son.
Amir Taheri apprehended that Israel might impose a victors peace on
Palestinians. In a war that produces a victor and a vanquished, it is up to the
victor to define the contours of victory and the new equilibrium that emerges
after hostilities cease. The victor writes the peace treaty and the
vanquished swallows it, even when the taste is bitter.
In the case of Israel this mechanism did not work because each time
Israel won a war, the United Nations intervened to put the victor and the
vanquished on the same level, thus making a new equilibrium conditional on
a hoped-for but unlikely agreement Had Israel won its wars before the
creation of the UN it would have been able to do what all victors had always
done in history: Dictate the peace with which it is comfortable The
problem was that the UN while preventing the victor from cashing his
victory was itself unable to produce the kind of peace it liked failure of
the UN tells only part of the story.
Another key reason for the stalemate was the inability or
unwillingness of successive Israeli leaders to produce a clear definition of
what Israel was. From the beginning Israel has been a work in progress, an
unfinished product. It is the only 20th century state in the world without a
constitution. It is also one of a handful without clearly demarcated borders.
It is also the only member state of the United Nations not to be recognized
by more than two dozed fellow-member states For most Israelis, and some
Jews across the globe, Israel remained more of an idea than a classical
nation-state. All that began to change in the 1990s when some Israeli
leaders gradually endorsed two-state solution to the conflict.
Sharonism was developed in response to those problems. The first
thing it did was to revive the classical rule of war that makes it incumbent on
the victor to state what kind of peace he wants. But to do that it was essential
for Sharon to decide how exactly Israel was to be delineated.

77

Any ambiguities left in the process fit in Zionist cause allowing

Israel to translate itself from a cause into a nation state. It would also allow
the Palestinians, and beyond them Arab and non-Arab supporters, to know
exactly what to accept or to oppose.
Sharon also realized that waiting for an ideal Palestinian partner
was futile. No Palestinian leader could ever be ideal from the Israeli point of
view because none could accept maximum that Israel could offer They
might regard the Israeli peace as unjust, even scandalous. History is full of
instances of the vanquished not accepting the peace dictated by the victor.
Once Israel has imposed its version of peace the Palestinians might
well continue to contest it, diplomatically and by the force of arms. But then
that would be a conflict between two states, not a clash between two
causes.
The next Israeli governments key task is to start by creating one
of the two proposed states: The state of Israel in its definitive shape. Once
that is done the creation of the second, the Palestinian one, might require the
cooperation of the international community.
Asad Abdul Rahman observed, Olmert is emboldened in this
endeavour by what US President George W Bush said roughly two years
ago: A final peace agreement would have to recognize demographic
realities on the ground.
Israel hopes to achieve a demographic disengagement with the
Palestinians rather than a territorial one. At the end of the process, we will
reach a complete separation from the vast majority of Palestinian
population, Olmert told the Maariv daily.
Olmert plans to set Israels final borders by largely following the
separation barrier it is building in the West Bank, with some adjustments to
keep as many Palestinians out as possible. I believe that in four years time
Israel will be disengaged from the vast majority of the Palestinian
population.
What territory remains after Israel draws to its final borders is
misshapen and geographically un-contiguous. It will have no access to water
or arable land and is separated from all sides from Occupied Jerusalem. This
outcome cannot be further from a viable state acceptable to any
Palestinian leadership.
It will only play into the hands of extremists and give further
ammunition to fundamentalism. Israel would forfeit the chance for peace,
78

security and fruitful relations with the Palestinians and Arab states that only
a negotiated settlement brings. Ironically, the analysts after describing the
sinister design of the Israel termed Palestinians as extremists for objecting
to such a gross injustice.
Gwynne Dyer opined that America would go along with Olmert, just
as it has been doing in the past. It is possible (though unlikely) that the
Bush Administration might yet browbeat the State Department into
recognizing not only Israels annexation of east Jerusalem but the far
greater expansion of Israels borders that Olmert now has in mind But
it is simply inconceivable that Bush could persuade other countries to accept
such a flagrant violation of international law.
He cannot deliver; the deadline is meaningless. Olmerts government
can build walls, dig ditches, move settlers around, proclaim that Israels
eternal borders are now some distance to the east of where they were last
week, maybe even get the Bush Administration to agree to the change, but
none of it will have any legal force. The whole exercise will take up
enormous amounts of time, effort and newsprint over the next few years, but
it is in the end only a charade.
M B Naqvi had similar views. The stark reality remains that the
Palestinians remain at the mercy of triumphant Israelis and no Arab
potentate will come to their aid. But more the Israelis oppress the
Palestinians and impose borders of their choice on Arabs, the discontent
will grow; the more Iran will look like a beacon of light and strength to Arab
masses Insofar as the Palestine question is concerned, the US is the
biggest factor enabling Israel to go on imposing a military occupation nearly
40 years after the 1967 war.
Impositions of economic sanctions are aimed at bringing the
Palestinians to their knees and force them to accept the peace script written
by the extremist Jews. Arab News wrote, three Palestinian ministers are on
a fund-raising trip to Arab and Islamic states. Russia is following up its
hosting of a Hamas delegation last month by pledging an unspecified
amount of financial assistance. So far though, cash has not been
forthcoming and surviving on thyme, salt and olive, as a defiant
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah said, will not suffice.
The present yardstick of success for the Palestinians is not whether
the road map is adhered to, not whether Jerusalem returns, or the fate of
political prisoners, the return of refugees or final border status or settlements
or the wall of separation or even an independent state Today, it is less all
79

this and more about the day-to-day feeding of a people, getting them an
education, health services, jobs and housing The noble Palestinian cause
is thus being reduced to greater bread-and-butter issue.
The News criticized this approach. The policy, aside from its
inhumane face, may not be the most intelligible path to take in order to reach
a sustainable settlement in the historically violent standoff. Firstly, continued
funding will surely affect the masses more so than it will Hamas. For a
comparable case, it can be recollected that the sanctions on Iraq in the 90s
were not only unable to pry Saddam from power, but instead resulted in the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Furthermore, the already salient aversion of the Palestinian people
towards the West in light of perceived disregard for their plight under Israeli
repression is an important consideration perhaps this is why Hamas was
elected in the first place. The unsympathetic notions imbued by the EU-US
announcement serve only to evoke greater resentment and further
legitimate the groups aggressive stance towards the Jewish state and its
allies, not only within the Palestinian population, but within the Muslim
World in general.
The Jews and the Crusaders were aware of this possibility and
prepared to suppress it with use of brute force. Musa Keilani said, tension is
steadily growing in Palestine, and might indeed be a matter of days, or
weeks at best, before the Israelis start staging provocative military
operations against the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.
He pointed towards the method often employed by the Crusaders
against Muslim nations; exploit the differences within the ranks of
Palestinians. Washington funded Hamas rivals in a bid to deny the group a
victory in the elections and that it might be party to Israel efforts to
undermine the Hamas-led government.
During first week of April, Israel resorted to unprovoked air strikes
and artillery fire and Palestinian reacted by carrying out suicide bombing.
The News wrote, in his own criticism of it (bombing in Tel Aviv) during an
open Security Council meeting on Monday, Tiyab Mansour, the Palestinian
observer at the United Nations, pointed out that 21 Palestinians had been
killed from April 7 to 9 in Israels military escalation in the Gaza Strip.
These people, as well as the Palestinian teenager killed by Israeli shelling
there on Monday, were just as innocent as the victims of the bombing.
Palestinian extremism draws immediate denunciation from Washington and

80

the West, but there is rarely even a comment on what Palestinians perceive
as Israeli state terrorism.
Its this one-sidedness which encourages Israel in its occupation
and oppression. That, in turn, increases frustration of the Palestinian
population in the West Bank and Gaza. Yesterday, Foreign Ministry officials
in Tokyo said Japan would halt new aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian
Authority, until it became clear to it that Hamas was committed to the peace
process. That would imply that Israel, in occupation of Palestinian territories
for nearly 39 years in contravention of UN resolutions, is committed. The
refusal of the US and the West to recognize the overwhelming victory of
Hamas in Janaurys parliamentary elections, more so their financial
throttling of the government, is only worsening the Palestinians
desperation.
Duraid al-Baik said, the annoying element in this bleak picture is
the attitude of the EU and its failure to condemn the Israeli action while
issuing one warning after another to Hamas to behave itself and condemn
terrorism. He opined that Israeli aggression and its condoning by the West
sends a chilling message.
Whatever Palestinians have done in the past to bow to Israeli
demands and whatever they might agree to do in future to appease the
international community, they will never ever get their lost peace and they
will never ever get their legitimate rights back as far as Israelis do exist in
their neighbourhoods It goes without an argument that such kind of
annoying messages is a fertile breeding ground for more terrorism and
violence in the region and the Israelis are sowing the seeds of hatred on a
daily basis.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan opined, under conditions of occupation and
threats of Israeli military presence even in the areas vacated during the
colonists convergence, it is unrealistic to expect Hamas to completely
give up the option of an armed struggle. In fact, the sheer intensity of
present pressure on Hamas may lead to third intifada.
The situation created by the two elections demands the Arab states,
particularly those with friendly ties with the United States, intensify their
efforts to persuade Washington and Tel Aviv that long term regional
interests would be better served by a negotiated peace
In the name of national security, Israel is pushing peace off the
international agenda. Governments and media organs in Arab-Islamic
world need to work twice as hard as they do at the moment to bring the
81

focus back to the imperative of creating a fully sovereign Palestinian state

with east Jerusalem as its capital.

OPPOSING WINDS
Critics of war made the smooth sailing difficult for Bush and his
buddies. Jonathan Steele said Iraqis face a more brutal life with each passing
month. Terror and chaos reign and the titanic challenge of ensuring
political stability has barely begun to be addressed.
The spate of sectarian revenge killings that followed the bombing of
the golden-domed shrine at Samarra last months not yet over, in spite of an
8pm curfew imposed in Baghdad. Abductions and murders continue
relentlessly. Bodies, often scarred by torture and with their hands tied, have
been turning up on lonely roadsides at the rate of 13 a day.
Many Baghdadis rarely venture out except to the corner store. Those
who drive to work vary their routes. A doctor who uses taxis to get to her
hospital says she tells the driver shes a patient, since it makes kidnapping a
bit less likely Even shopping has become risky. Eight people at an
electrical appliance store in the middle-class suburb of Mansour were lined
up against a wall and shot dead this week by gunmen
Iraqis who work for the government or have jobs in the Green Zone
are especially vulnerable. Soldiers in the national army and policemen
usually go home in civilian clothes. Some dare not tell their families, let
alone their neighbours, what their jobs are. Throughout Iraq policemen are
dying at a rate of 150 a month, yet new recruits never stop coming forward,
attracted by the pay in rock-bottom economy.
Senior civil servants are key targets. Inspector generals have the task
of auditing ministers for corruption and other abuses. Two of the 31 have
been assassinated, and at a press conference on Tuesday the two who came
declined to be filmed.
While violence grows, the political deterioration over the past
three months is also remarkable. Iraqs selected leaders have failed to
agree on who should be the countrys next prime minister and president,
leaving a vacuum of authority that is making Iraqis increasingly cynical
about democracy and eager for a strong hand at the top.
Sidney Blumenthal wrote, last month there were eight times as many
assassinations committed by Shia militia as terrorist murders by Sunni

82

insurgents. The insurgency, according to the reports, also continues to

mutate. Meanwhile, President Bushs strategy of training Iraqi police and
army to take over from coalition forces when they stand up, well stand
down is perversely and portentously accelerating the strife. State
departments officials in the field are reporting that Shia militias use training
as cover to infiltrate key positions; thus, the strategy to create institutions of
order and security is fuelling civil war.
Rather than being received as invaluable intelligence, the messages
are discarded or, worse, considered signs of disloyalty. Rejecting the facts
on the ground apparently requires blaming the messengers. So far, two top
attaches at the embassy have been reassigned elsewhere for producing
factual reports that are too upsetting.
Under the pretence that Iraq is being pacified, the military is partially
withdrawing from hostile towns in the countryside and parts of Baghdad. By
reducing the number of soldiers, the administration can claim its policy is
working
The state departments Intelligence and Research Bureau was correct
in its skepticism before the war about Saddam Husseins possession of
WMDs, but was ignored. The department was correct in its assessment in its
17-volume Future of Iraq project about the immense effort required for
reconstruction after the war, but it was disregarded. Now its reports from
Iraq are correct, but their authors are being punished.
Amid this internal crisis of credibility, the secretary of state,
Condoleezza Rice, has washed her hands of her department. Her
management skills are minimal While the state department was racked
last week by collapsing morale, Rice traveled to England to visit the
constituency of Jack Straw. She declared that though the Bush
Administration had committed tactical errors, thousands of them in Iraq, it
is right on the strategy. Then she and Straw took a magic carpet to Baghdad
to try to overthrow Prime Minister Ibrahin al-Jaafari in favour of a more
liable character.
Did you ever imagine in your wildest dreams after Vietnam wed be
doing this again? One top state department official remarked to another last
week. Inside the department, people wonder about the next strategy after
the hearts-and-minds gambit of sending diplomats unprotected to secure
victory turns into a squalid fiasco? Helicopters on the roof? asked an
official.

83

Musa Keilani was of the view that there is neither peace nor
democracy. From the day American battle tanks rolled into Iraq on March
20, 2003, the people of Iraq have not known peace The situation is
drifting towards civil war as efforts to form a government remain stalled.
It is against this backdrop that US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice conceded on Friday that the Bush Administration probably has made
thousands of tactical errors in Iraq and elsewhere, but insisted that it will
be judged by its larger aims of peace and democracy in the Middle East
Put it that way, yes, the invasion did serve US strategic interests, but not
peace and democracy.
In Iraq, the US could start by launching a serious dialogue with the
Arab League and the United Nations, in all transparency, on how to restore
stability to the country. A prerequisite is an unambiguous statement that
the US has no plans to consolidate its military presence in Iraq and that it
does not intend to destabilize other countries in the region. This should be
coupled with setting a firm date for the US military to withdraw from Iraq.
When supported by the countries which are genuinely interested in
peace and stability in the Middle East, the Arab League and the UN could
put their heads together and come up with a formula that would retain
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and guarantee the legitimate
rights of all Iraqis, something that the US has not been able to do so far.
Patrick Cockburn said, Iraq has effectively broken up. Its
administration has little influence beyond the Green Zone. In the great
Baghdad area, with a population of over six million, civil war has already
begun. The US military say 1,313 people were killed in sectarian murders in
March. This is just dead bodies, often bearing marks of torture, which have
been recovered. The real figure for Shiite and Sunni Arabs killed by each
other is probably running at over 100 every day. This may exceed the daily
death rate in the first months of either the English or American civil wars.
There is no longer an Iraqi state to be led. The primary allegiance of
the army and police is to the Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish communities and not
to their own government. Most of Iraq is dominated by a single ethnic or
religious group, but in Baghdad Sunni and Shiite are mixed together. The
battle between them for the control of the capital has already started The
militias are growing in power because Shiites and Sunnis both want armed
men they can trust from their own communities to defend their district.
It is unlikely that sectarian cleansing by Sunnis or Shiites can be
reversed at this stage. Sometimes the minority moves out peacefully,
84

knowing that it dare not stand and fight. An Iraqi Army captain from Diyala
province, northeast of Baghdad, told me: where you get the worst violence
is where the Shiites and Sunnis are present in about the same numbers so
they can fight for control.
Jonathan Steele accused US and its allies of deliberately ignoring the
death squads who are indulging in ethnic cleansing. In the apt phrase of
Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, they (militias) are the
infrastructure of civil war More Iraqis are dying from militia violence
than from the terrorists. Militias need to be under control.
His blunt comment came in the wake of over 1,000 abductions and
murders in a single month, most of them blamed on Shia militias. Terrified
residents of Baghdads mainly Sunni areas talk of cars roaring up after dark,
uninhibited by the police in spite of the curfew US officials paid lip
service to the need to disband the militias
Iraqi leaders praised the militias, claiming they were subordinate to
the defence and interior ministries, and therefore in no way a rogue
element Jaafari described the Badr organization last summer as a shield
defending Iraq, while the president, Jalal Talabani, claimed the Badr
organization and the peshmerga were patriots who are important to
fulfilling this sacred task, establishing a democratic, federal and independent
Iraq.
US officials now view the militias differently. Phasing them out by
integrating their members into the official forces of law and order is seen as
risky, unless the leadership changes The crucial question is whether the
militias can be rolled back at this late stage. Having allowed them to defy
their initial banning orders, as well as Iraqs new constitution, which
outlawed them, can the US persuade or force its Iraqi allies to disband them?
Confronting the Sunni insurgency means in crude terms, confronting the
enemy. Confronting the biggest militias, Badr and the peshmerga, means the
US must confront its friends.
Eugene Robinson felt the need for a genie to control the situation.
The Bush Administration would like to see a government of national
unity, as if such a thing existed in todays Iraq. Perhaps in the fanciful
Baghdad of the Arabian Nights theres a genie who can cross his arms, blink
his eyes and conjure a genie breeze that spreads harmony across the
land. If they find him, they should make him prime minister.
Now the administration is fixated on the peace and prosperity that
will surely take root throughout ancient Mesopotamia I only a bunch of self85

interested Iraqi politicians grudgingly settle on a division of spoils that can,

with a straight face, be called a government of national unity.
William M Arkin said, in the history of historic misjudgments, thus
al-Qaeda and the Bush Administration have something in common. The
Bush Administration similarly had no idea that defeat of Saddam Husseins
army would be as catastrophically successful as it ended up being, and they
did not plan on Iraqis responding to the war and the American occupation as
fiercely as they have.
M B Naqvi was of the view that the Iraqi states chances of survival
rest on defeating the design of those who are provoking a Shia-Sunni
sectarian war no matter who is stoking this fire, though it is necessary to
investigate it. That will need the cooperation of Iran and Shia Iraqis as well
as many others. Flames from a recrudescence of ancient animosities will
envelop more countries in the Arab world, no matter who wins or loses.
Derrick Z Jackson wrote about the almost forgotten aspect the
occupation; the reconstruction fraud. Of $ 20.7 billion in Iraqi bank
accounts and oil revenues seized by the Coalition Provisional Authority in
the US-led invasion of Iraq, $ 14 billion was given out for reconstruction but
tens of millions of dollars were unaccounted for. A year ago, an audit by the
inspector general found no evidence of work done or goods delivered on 154
of 198 contracts. Sixty cases of potential swindles are under investigation.
Halliburton and its hundreds of millions of dollars of overcharges or
baseless costs were well known. But millions more were taken by companies
that promised to build or restore libraries or police facilities, or deliver
trucks and construction equipment US government investigators can
account for only a third of the $ 1.5 billion given by the CPA to the interim
government and it appears that a substantial portion of the $ 8 billion given
to Iraqi ministries went to ghost employees.
Because of the way the United States set things up after the invasion,
contractors are immune from prosecution by Iraqis. And even when firms
are prosecuted, the millions of dollars in fines go to the US Treasury, not the
Iraqi people. It amounts to two invasions: First the bombs; then the banks.
This is robbery, not reconstruction It has been three years and all
Iraq has become is a free-fraud zone, according to one of the attorneys for
whistleblowers in Iraqi swindles Recently, the Army found that
Halliburton had $ 263 million of exaggerated or unexplainable costs on a $
2.4 billion no-bid contract, yet still paid Halliburton $ 253 million of the $
263 million.
86

Halliburton is in 103rd place in the Fortune 5000 with $ 21 billion in

revenues and just under $ 2.4 billion in profits. Halliburton gets its $ 2.4
billion no-bid contract nearly paid in full while the Iraqi people are out of
much of their $ 21 billion. We liberated Iraq. The resources belong to
American contractors.
After illegal occupation, some glimpses of which are mentioned
above, the invaders had been telling the Iraqis about favours done to them.
What to talk of Iraqis, even Rosa Brooks was not impressed by these absurd
claims. The after all weve done for you! theme is more than a little
jarring, coming as it does from the architects of the war. The Iraqis didnt
beg us to invade their country. We invaded Iraq for reasons quite
unrelated to the welfare of the Iraqi people (and, it turn out, for reasons
unrelated to the welfare of the American people as well).
When coalition forces brought regime change in Iraq, they also
released from their bottles the genies of ethnic and sectarian conflict.
Hussein had kept Iraq intact through terror and brute force.
Andrian Hamilton focused on Bushs buddy. Blairs expressed belief
at the time that British reluctance to fight would have seriously damaged our
standing with the Bush Administration owed more to his own wish to be the
vanguard of the action than a realistic assessment of the options.
The real difference that a refusal to participate in the invasion would
have made would not have been in Londons relations with Washington but
in Britains status in Europe and the wider world. Declining to send troops
would have given Britain position in Europe and moral prestige in the
Muslim World while still enabling it to claim a special friendship with the
US. In a practical sense, Britain could have acted as a bridge across the
Atlantic and as a genuinely independent voice around the globe.
Mohammad Akif Jamal dwelled on Rices admission of thousands of
tactical mistakes committed in Iraq War. Depending on who commits the
mistake, there is a big difference between them. Mistakes committed by
ordinary people cannot be compared with mistakes committed by policy
makers and leaders.
The mistakes made by the US have resulted in the killing of tens of
thousands of Iraqis and destroying their countrys infrastructure. They have
also contributed to tearing apart the Iraqi social structure and placing Iraq on
the verge of a civil war. Worse, these mistakes have raised fears of
uncertainty and increased sectarian violence, destabilizing the entire region.

87

Rice and Straws visit came at a time of the growing calls within the
United Iraqi Alliance on Ebrahim al-Jaafari, the nominated prime minister,
to step down. The question is will this pave the way for a successful
Caesarean operation, giving birth to the long-awaited government? ... Rices
remarks raise another question: Will the visit add more to the US record
of tactical errors? It is clear that the tactical errors that Rice spoke about
had not caused any harm to the US interests or Rices political future.
She can speak about errors that do not cause any harm to the interests
of the US or its citizens, since the US administration will not be used to pay
compensations to the Iraqis, while the rights of US victims are preserved. So
who will pay to Iraq the price of thousands of tactical errors?
The focus of criticism ultimately shifted where it belonged to. One
after another retired general accused Rumsfeld of committing the
mistakes. David Ignatius said, make no mistake: The retired generals who
are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express
the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked
an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his
colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he suggested 75 percent.
Rumsfeld is a stubborn man, and I suspect the parade of retired
generals calling for his head has only made him more determined to hold on.
But by staying in his job, Rumsfeld is hurting the cause he presumably cares
most about The president, even more stubborn than his Pentagon chief, is
said to have rejected his offer to resign. If thats so, its time for Rumsfeld to
take the matter out of Bushs hands The administration needs to look this
one clearly in the eye. Without changes that shore up public support in
America, it risks losing the war in Iraq.
Andrew J Bacevich opined, unless and until we can restore some
semblance of civilian-military effectiveness, defective policies will be the
norm rather than the exception. This not the sins of Donald Rumsfeld is
the nub of the matter The issue is one that ought to be addressed in the
political realm. Indeed it cries out for serious and sustained legislative
attention. In past conflicts, Congress has established joint committees to
evaluate the wars conduct. Such an investigation of the Iraq War is long
due.
If the manifestly anemic Congress cannot arouse itself to undertake
such a task, it might create a commission like the one that investigated the
events of 9/11, charging it with assessing the civilian-military dissonance
that has hampered the wars planning and execution. Todays dissident
88

generals could testify before such a commission, making their case against
Rumsfeld but also accounting for militarys performance.
The News wrote, the nature of the allegations is serious enough to
have put at stake the credibility of the entire Iraq operation, which has
been dubbed by retired generals as badly planned and devoid of vision for
durable peace in the post-Saddam period. Perhaps this was essentially the
Rumsfeld plan to keep the war going with billions of American taxpayers
dollars being channeled into the arms industry to sustain the war.
The kinds of accusations that have surfaced against Rumsfeld
warrant a deeper probe by the Bush Administration, especially when the
accusers are credible men of determined stature and expertise. Such an
enquiry will also be important in determining the soundness of the war plan
that led to the killing of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
HDS Greenway observed, respect for the military institution itself is
deeply ingrained in the American military. Publicly criticizing the civilian
leadership is not done, even in retirement, and some military men are
offended by the forthright generals and their public statements. On the other
hand, Colonel H R McMasters book Dereliction of Duty, which criticizes
the top brass for not speaking out against the Vietnam War, has been making
the rounds, making a powerful case for speaking out.
But the provocation that brought these American generals to go
public was intense. To my mind, none of the generals put it better than
Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold when he told Time magazine that the
commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and a
swagger that are the special provinces of those who have never had to
execute these missions or bury the results.
Melvin R Laird and Robert E Pursley were of the view that a general
officer is expected to follow orders, but he is also entitled to advise if he
thinks those orders are flawed. The ghost of Vietnam may be whispering to
these retired generals, who understandably want to guarantee that military
wisdom is never again trampled by political expediency The problem is
that when military advice is considered and then rejected, officers are likely
to feel sidelined. Sometimes we all must wait for hindsight to be able to
make accurate judgments.
Sidney Blumenthal quoted some of the statements of generals while
commenting on the issue:

89

 Retired Maj Gen Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi
army, called Rumsfeld incompetent strategically, operationally and
tactically.
Retired General Anthony Zinni, former chief of US Central Command
said: Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission.
Retired Lt Gen Gregory Newbold wrote: I now regret that I did not
more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a
country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat al-Qaeda.
Retired Maj Gen John Riggs said: They only need the military advice
when it satisfies their agenda.
Maj Gen Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82 nd Airborne,
said that Rumsfeld bore culpability for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
He went on to mention the viewpoint of opposing side. Donald
Rumsfelds closest aide, the undersecretary of defence for intelligence,
Stephen Cambone, joked that the armys problem could be solved by lining
up 50 of its generals in the Pentagon and gunning them down Rumsfeld
held a Pentagon meeting where he declared the bureaucracy the career
professionals to be a serious threat to the security of the United States.
The Bush Administration has mounted a full-scale PR defence.
Rumsfeld appeared in the guise of King Solomon on rightwing radio talk
show of host Rush Limboughs programme: This, too, will pass. Bush
proposed a syllogism: Im the decider, and I decide whats best. And whats
best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain.
He, like HDS Greenway, was of the view that the generals who
criticized Rumsfeld spoke in the language on McMasters book, Dereliction
of Duty, in which the author had argued that the joint chiefs of staff of the
Vietnam era had failed in their constitutional responsibility to object
strenuously to misguided strategies. He concluded: History? We dont
know. Well all be dead, Bush remarked in 2003. We cannot escape
history, said Abraham Lincoln. The living president has already sealed
his reputation in history.
Nasim Zehra agreed; there is enough out there to outrage the
sensitive soldiers and also make them question the logic of the war. They
cannot come out openly to oppose the war. Yet high-profile military men are
joining the chorus of criticism of the Congress, media and organized groups.

90

This will make the war in Iraq more unpopular, Bush more unpopular,
and force an earlier drawdown of US troops from Iraq.
Maggie Mitchell Salem opined, in the end, the presidents blind
ambition and misguided loyalty to discredited senior officials, principally
Cheney and Rumsfeld, may lead to defeat for his party and incredibly
stain his record. The real tragedy is that American values, which he so
loudly trumpets abroad, seem of little consequence to him at home. Bush
will survive his second term. The question remains: will America?

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
As the Crusaders became more vocal about sanctions, deadlines and
preemptive strike, Iran stepped up flexing its military muscle to deter the
war-mongers. Tehran test-fired a sonar-evading underwater missile on 2 nd
April, which is capable of outpacing enemy warships. Next day, Iran said it
has successfully teat-fired a dangerous torpedo in war games in the Gulf.
Iran test-fired new land-to-sea missile on 4th April and next day third
missile was test-fired. Tehran Iran said Washington must accept Iran as a
big regional power. Four days later, Iran claimed shooting down a drone
which had taken off from Iraq and was filming southern border areas.
Meanwhile, Bush Administration was reported planning massive
bombing against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear weapons to
destroy nuclear facilities. Straw called US nuclear strike on Iran
completely nuts. Iran branded the media reports of air strikes as
psychological warfare so that Tehran abandons its nuclear programme.
Critics of Bush expressed alarm about reports of possible military
action against Iran. On 10th April, Irans president promised good news
within days about the countrys nuclear programme. Next day, Iranian
scientists announced enrichment of uranium to 3.5 percent required for
civilian reactor.
Nejad asked foreign governments to recognize and respect Irans
rights. When a people master nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, nothing
can be done against them, said armed forces joint chief of staff, Gen
Firouzabadi. Scientists said Iran was determined to complete work within
three years on a heavy water reactor in Arak and 3,000 centrifuges would be
installed within the next year at Natanz. The West can do nothing and is
obliged to extend to us the hand of friendship, said ISNA.

91

The milestone was achieved at a plant of 164 centrifuges in Natanz,

despite UNSC had set April 28 as deadline for Tehran to halt the ultrasensitive work. It also came on the eve of ElBaradeis visit to Iran. Rice
called UNSC to take strong steps and the White House said sanctions were
now an option. France, Germany, Russia and US described the move as a
step in the wrong direction.
Iran refused to suspend nuclear work. ElBaradei said enrichment
claim was not yet confirmed. On 16th April, Washington said Iran has
expanded nuclear facilities and six major powers decided to meet in Moscow
to discuss Iran issue. Iran warned against attack and Rafsanjani said attack
wont be in the interest of US. The same day, Chinese official held talks with
Iran on nuclear issue.
Next day, Pentagon declined to comment on report of strike plans.
Iran was ready for war if attacked, said Iranian Envoy in Moscow. On 18 th
April, Bush refused to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran. Ahmedinejad
said Iran would cut off hand of aggressor. Rafsanjani said Iran was ready
for showdown with US. A senior Iranian official was sighted in Washington
but purpose of his visit remained unknown. Oil prices struck record high of
above 72 dollars a barrel. Ahmedinejad said the crude oil prices were still
below their real value.
American approach of imposing sanctions or using military means
against Iran was widely opposed by the analysts for varying reasons.
Simon Jenkins said, sanctions will split the world coalition against
nuclear proliferation, since Russia and China have close trading links with
Iran. The US and Britain would then be back to the same slide to war as in
Iraq. They would have to decide whether to fight on alone or endure
humiliating retreat.
Iran is the first test of Blairs interventionism, and the auguries are
not good. Every saber rattle in Washington must be music to Ahmedinejads
ear. Whether or not a bombing attack might damage his factories, it is
unlikely to destabilize his government, rather the reverse. It would
heighten nationalist fervor and increase hatred of the West.
The more the West threatens, the stronger is the case of Tehrans
hawks for a nuclear arsenal. Iran is within range of five nuclear powers,
including the US. What army would not want a deterrent when the world is
awash with crazies?

92

Confrontation without a willingness to use total force is bluff. Many

Iranian hardliners must be itching to cause more trouble in Iraq, threaten
tanker lanes in the Straits of Hormuz and set Asian opinion further against
the West. As for backing the Baluchi insurgents, this is madness The
much-vaunted neocon campaign for a secure and liberal democracy in Asia
is in retreat.
The Boston Globe wrote, for the purpose of shaping a sound strategy,
the crucial conclusions to draw are that Irans clerical regime cannot be
easily deflected from its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and Irans rulers are
intent not to appear intimidated by hints of American recourse to
military force.
The daily pointed out the extent of destruction that military action
would be required to inflict. To set back Irans nuclear program for even a
short period, military strikes would have to destroy not merely scores of
suspected nuclear sites, but also Irans air defences, airfields, and missile
launchers. More expansive target lists would also include command and
control locations as well as Revolutionary Guards Headquarters and Irans
political leadership.
It concluded, if there is a way to avoid perilous confrontation, it may
lie in Iranian suggestions, both public and private, of an interest in direct
US-Iranian negotiations. If Bush has learned anything from past
blunders, he will put aside any qualms he may have about the odious
regime in Tehran and explore the possibilities of a deal that grants Iran
security guarantees and economic benefits as compensation for halting its
pursuit of nuclear weapons. Distasteful as such a deal may be, the
alternatives are far worse.
Dianne Feinstein opined that use of bunker-buster would be a
disastrous tragedy. First use of nuclear weapons by the United States
should be unthinkable. A preemptive nuclear attack violates a central tenet of
the just war and US military traditions.
There is no question that in the post-9/11 era, a full range of policy
options for dealing with new and uncertain events should be on the table.
But in my view, nuclear options cannot be considered as an extension of
conventional options.
The US should engage Iran diplomatically. So far, England, France
and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Irans uranium
enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives. It is time for the
US to lead such efforts, not stand by.
93

Richard Clarke and Steven Simon wrote, any United States bombing
campaign would simply begin a multi-move, escalatory process. Iran
could respond three ways. First, it could attack Persian Gulf oil facilities and
tankers as it did in the mid 1980s which could cause oil prices to spike
above $ 80 a barrel.
Second and more likely, Iran could use its terrorist network to strike
American targets around the world, including inside the United States. Iran
has forces at its command that are far superior to anything al-Qaeda was
ever able to field. The Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah has a global
reach, and has served in the past as an instrument of Iran
Third, Iran is in a position to make our situation in Iraq far more
difficult than it already is. The Badr Brigade and other Shiite militias in Iraq
could launch a more deadly campaign against British and American troops.
There is every reason to believe that Iran has such a retaliatory shock wave
planned and ready.
Bloodied by Iranian retaliation, President Bush would most likely
authorize wider and more intensive bombing. Non-military Iranian
government targets would probably be struck in a vain hope that the Iranian
people would seize the opportunity to overthrow the government. More
likely, the American war against Iran would guarantee the regime
decades more of control.
Mark Helprin was of the view that with an intermediate-range
strategic nuclear capacity, it could deter American intervention, reign over
the Persian Gulf, further separate Europe from American Middle East
policy, correct a nuclear imbalance with Pakistan, lead and perhaps unify the
Muslim World, and thus create the chance to end Western dominance of the
Middle East and/or with a single shot destroy Israel. He cleverly mixed up
contradicting possibilities in one sentence.
He explained the nature of task the military has to perform. The
obvious option is an aerial campaign to divest Iran of its nuclear potential:
i.e. clear the Persian Gulf of Iranian naval forces, scrub anti-ship missiles
from the shore and lay open antiaircraft-free corridors to each target. With
the furious capacity of its new weapons, the United States can accomplish
this readily. Were the targets effectively hidden or buried, Iran could shut
down, coerced or perhaps revolutionized by the simple and rapid destruction
of its oil production and transport. The Iranians know their obvious
vulnerabilities, but are we aware of ours?

94

In this war with a newly revived militant Islam, we think

systematically and they think imaginatively. As we strain to bring the genius
of imagination to our systems, they attempt to bring systematic discipline to
their imagination, and neither of us is precluded from success.
He (Ahmedinejad) may have in mind to draw out and damage
any American onslaught with his thousands of surface-to-air missiles and
anti-aircraft guns; by a concentrated air and naval attack to sink one or more
major American warships; and to mobilize the Iraqi Shia in a general
uprising, with aid from infiltrated Revolutionary Guards and conventional
elements, that would threaten US forces in Iraq and severe their lines of
supply. This by itself would be a victory for those who see in the colours of
martyrdom, but if he could knock us back and put enough of our blood in the
water, the real prize might come into reach. That is: to make such a fury in
the Islamic World that, as it has done before and not long ago, it would
throw over caution in favour of Jihad.
While mentioning the above, he also ventured on shifting the blame to
Russia. Were Russia not playing a double game, it would not have
agreed in December to upgrade the Iranian air force and sell Iran 29 SA-15
SAMs for the protection of key facilities.
Amir Taheri politely explained Russian failing in finding a negotiated
solution. Of all the powers involved in the current showdown with Iran,
only Russia is in a position to tip the balance one way or the other to say
between a peaceful resolution or war.
The Russian position at the Security Council is crucial because
China, which also has a veto, would not be prepared to isolate itself by
siding with Iran if Russia sides with the US. If Russia vetoes, so will China.
If Russia does not veto, the most the China might do to please Iran is to
abstain.
Russia needs Iran for a number of reasons, including,
paradoxically, as part of Moscows strategy to counter and, if possible,
curtail US influence in Central Asia, the Caspian Basin and the Middle
East As regional allies, Tehran and Moscow have already succeeded in
containing or curtailing American influence in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan. In Tajikistan, Tehran, which had sided with the US against
Russia a decade ago, is now switching back to Moscow.
In Afghanistan, Tehran and Moscow have been working closely for
more than a decade and are engaged in developing a joint strategy in

95

anticipation of an American withdrawal once Bush leaves office in three

years time.
The US, backed by Britain, proposes a division of the Caspian among
its littoral states so that each could conclude separate contracts with foreign
nations. Of the five littoral states of the Caspian only two, Azebaijan and
Kazakhstan, are favourable to the US proposed model. Russia and Iran are
against.
Having lost all of its Arab friends and clients of the Soviet era,
Moscow also needs Tehran as a bridgehead to the Middle East, the Gulf and
the Indian Ocean It is also in conjunction with Iran, that Russia envisages
making a comeback in such places as Syria and Lebanon where Iranian
influence is already well-established.
Looming large on the horizon is China which, Putins recent visit to
Beijing notwithstanding, is seen by many Moscow analysts as a potential
threat to Russian interests in Asia and Middle East. In that context a SinoIranian axis could isolate Russia in Western Asia and the Middle East and
even shut it out of chunks of Central Asia.
Another reason why Moscow needs Iran is related to the so-called
Islamic time bomb that is ticking in the heart of the Russian federation.
With birth rates among ethnic Russians in free fall, the federations
estimated 25 million Muslims, now a fifth of the population, are stated to
double by the middle of the century The Islamic Republic, although a
Shiite power, could, nevertheless, play a role in discouraging secessionist
tendencies among Russias predominantly Sunni Muslims.

Pakistan is perilously equated with Iran in the context of nuclear

issue; therefore, military action against Iran was widely opposed. The News
wrote, now, for the latest round of statements William Arkin, a US
spymaster posted in Berlin in the 1970s, says America had planned a war
against Iran even before if launched its drive to rid Iraq of the evil called
Saddam Hussein. Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and United
Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan warn the Americans that war or
military intervention if you like against Iran will lead to serious
consequences. And if this is not enough of a revelation for one day, a former
White House counter-terrorism head, Richard Clarke, writes that a war
against Iran could even be more damaging to Americas interests than
the war in Iraq. We know all this Messers Akrin, Rafsanjani, Annan and
Co. We have known it all throughout.

96

In another editorial the News added, there are and will be people
admiring Iran just for the sheer grit it has shown in taking on the might of
the imperialist United States. It is dangerous game, but the mere fact that
Iran and Ahmeninejad have the guts to stand up to, or even bluff,
President Bush and Co warms the hearts of many.
Washington maintains that it is not the instigator in the case of its
tense ties with Tehran. American officials have been saying all along with
greater frequency after Iran renewed its nuclear programme earlier this year
that they are just responding to what a country with a dubious reputation
has been attempting to achieve.
Yet, Americas own deeds have in the meantime been
questionable, jeopardizing agreements that enjoy respect internationally.
Take the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty for instance, which must be
signed and ratified before a state can acquire nuclear power. A US that
pursues a nuclear deal with an India which has not signed the NPT
Humera Niazi was of the view that Indo-US nuclear cooperation
creates double standards in the US pursuit for global non proliferation,
because Washington strongly opposes Irans nuclear programme. In the
Muslim Worlds perspective it creates another dimension, as it suggests an
approach towards Islamic countries which is prejudged and favours Indias
posture in the region, in a manner that puts Muslim countries at a strategic
disadvantage.
Rafi Nasim from Lahore was of the view that since the issue is under
discussion at the UNO, America has no right to take it in its own hands. Mr
Bush must realize that he will lose the favour of half the world if he
attacks Iran.
Farooq Sulehria wrote, every time a country joins the nuclear club, it
enhances the threat to world peace and the global environment. But the
Empires nuclear hypocrisy and selective position to proliferation
complicates, rather politicizes, the nuclear question globally.
In a subsequent editorial the News commented on Bushs nuclear
bluff. Bush talked of diplomacy too, but with a gun to Irans head
Actually, arbitrary action is not going to be so easy for the US. This talk of
nuclear strike looks more like a US bluff, but a very dangerous one
indeed.
Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri proposed avoidance of military
confrontation, but his argument was defeatist. Events could spin out of

97

control as earlier wars and conflicts have shown. It is better that issues of
pride and prejudice are set aside and the region spared from another major
concussion. The US, as a distant and stronger power, will not suffer as much
as would Iran. Besides the Persian Gulf states, the larger Middle East, and
the adjoining region including Pakistan, will have to face the shock waves.
The analyst by warning Iran suffering more and regional countries facing
shock waves suggested surrender.
M B Naqvi said, the Bush Administration is as obsessed with Iraq
today as George W Bush was about Iraq in the early years of this supposed
American Century, with dreams of a new Holy Roman Empire by the US
this time Let no one make a mistake that it is a Republican Party
programme only. The other major party, the Democrats, has not disavowed it
and also has no differing ideas or another worldview.
The whole region, more so as the South Asia and Southeast Asia are
largely in American corner. Iran stands out as a sore thumb in the path of
US march towards its destined hyper-powerhood Irans regime, for one,
is inflexibly and more or less permanently against all that Israel seeks to do
to help implement US designs. It is thus a strategic target that has to be
removed.
But the very attempt to change the Iranian regime, sure to require a
big military operation, will result in Iran hurting the entire capitalist
world by reducing its oil exports and by adopting a forward policy of
supporting Shia insurgencies throughout West Asia that may be waiting to
happen.
Despite the opposition, the Crusaders were encouraged by certain
factors to indulge in adventurism against Iran. One of these was identified
by Simon Tisdall, who said Tehrans enemy within encourages US.
Estimated six million Kurds, who mostly live in western provinces
bordering Turkey and Iraq have intensified their struggle since Mr
Ahmadinejad came to power.
Ethnically Arab Khuzestan province, in south-west Iran, has
witnessed several recent bomb attacks, including a rumoured attempt to
assassinate Mr Ahmedinejad in Ahvaz in January. British troops in Basra
were involved in supporting these separatist Arabs.
Two to three million ethnic Turkmen inhabit north-east Iran. Sunni
Muslims in a theocratic Shia state, they feel disadvantaged for both ethnic
and religious reasons. The Crusaders presence in bases in central Asia and

98

Afghanistan suits for providing support to these dissidents as envisaged in

the Long War Strategy.
Irans Bahai community, which is not allowed to practice its faith
and has often been subjected to persecution, forms another enemy within.
UN has already condemned suppression of this minority. He concluded,
President George Bushs national security strategy, published this month,
again urged Iranians to rise up against their oppressors. The analyst did not
mention another enemy within; the Baluch.
Simon Jenkins wrote, there are reports of US special forces,
operating inside Iran and funds being channeled to opposition groups. The
US is said to be aiding Sunni Baluchi insurgents in the south, as they once
did the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The gang of neo-cons did not require any encouragement for
regime change or invasion of any Muslim country, particularly when
they find the Ummah in complete disarry. Nevertheless, there were some
who prompted military action. The Christian Science Monitor wrote, Iran,
which has violated the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, only
manipulated those talks to buy time. The EU-3 helped hand off the issue to
the UN. Now the UNs own credibility is at stake not to mention Middle
East stability if Iran does indeed make a bomb or hands one to terrorists.
Sanctions have a mixed record in global affairs. They worked on
Libya, Vietnam, and apartheid South Africa but not yet on Burma, North
Korea, or many other countries. They helped persuade Saddam Hussein to
eliminate Iraqs weapons of mass destruction, but they hurt Iraqis.
Avoiding any immediate damage to common Iranians would be
difficult. Initial sanctions would need to be selective, such as travel and
banking bans, aimed first at Irans elite. Russia and China, however, may
block UN approved sanctions. That would push Europe, Japan, and the US
to impose their own. Such a step, says Iran expert Kenneth Pollack, would
be a nightmare for Iran.
It neednt come to that. Irans leaders may see that a growing
economy and supportive populace is more vital to maintaining their regime
than Iran becoming a nuclear-capable military power. The regimes
vulnerability, after all, is really internal, not external. Its legitimacy is quite
shaky Designing sanctions that would raise domestic pressure on the
clerics would be difficult. The wrong kind may backfire on the West,

99

leading to further speculations about a US military strike on Irans

nuclear facilities.
William M Akrin said, contingency planning for a bolt-out-of-theblue attack, let alone full-fledged war, against Iran may seem incredible right
now. But in the secretive world of military commands and war planners, it is
an everyday and unfortunate reality. Iran needs to understand that the
United States isnt hamstrung by a lack of options. It needs to realize that
it cant just stonewall and evade its international obligations, that it cant
burrow further underground in hopes that it will win merely because war is
messy.
On the surface, Iran controls the basic triggers that could set off US
military action. The first would be its acquisition of nuclear capability in
defiance of the international community. Despite last weeks bluster from
Tehran, the country is still years away from a nuclear weapon, let alone a
workable one
The second trigger would be Irans lashing out militarily (for through
proxy terrorism) at the United States or its allies, or closing the Strait of
Hormuz to international traffic. Sources say that CENTCOM and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff have developed flexible deterrent options in case Iran
were to take such actions.
Michael Levi opposed nuclear options, but suggested continuous
bombardment of nuclear facilities. There are three intertwined reasons
military planners might consider using nuclear weapons against an
underground target: uncertainty of the targets location, concern that the
depth makes conventional weapons impotent, and a need to destroy the
target near-instantaneously. None of these apply in the case of Iran.
The underground chambers at Natanz are well knownthe reports
place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground The United States could
repeatedly bomb the plant, if it wished, drilling down until it reached the
underground chambers. Even if that took days, it would set back the Iranian
program just as decisively as a nuclear attack.
There were some who continuously coaxed the Crusaders for
military action against Iran. One of them was Amir Taheri, a Muslim
brother. Some analysts suspect, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmeninejad
may actually want a military conflict with the US as the opening shot in
his promised clash of civilizations He may want a clash over the nuclear

100

issue which, thanks to the Goebblesian presentation, is seen by many

Iranians as a matter of nationalistic pride.
In another article he made a case for military action and advised the
Crusaders not be deceived by Ahmedinejads moves. All in all it was a
clever mixture of Islam, nationalism, science, political braggadocio, and
diplomatic flexibility. The announcement that Iran now masters the full
nuclear fuel cyclemay be no big deal to better-informed citizens In fact,
Iran had the scientific and technological capacity when the Ayatollah
Khomeini, who seized power in 1979, shut the nuclear program as satanic
had some scientists executed, and forced others to exile.
If our analysis is right, the next step for the Islamic republic would be
to announce that, having done what it wanted to do, it has now decided to
stop doing it for a while as a gesture of goodwill The Iranian climb-down,
if it has not already happened by the time this column is published, is sure to
come soon.
The reason is that Ahmedinejad has achieved his tactical goals and
has no reason to provoke a confrontation at this point. His first goal was to
discredit his two predecessors, Hashemi Rafsanjani and Muhammad
Khatami, by portraying them as weaklings who had given in to pressure and
agreed to stop uranium enrichment in the first place.
His second goal was to appear to be acting from a position of
strength, and, once again, he has succeeded Having developed its image
as a major military power that cannot be bullied by anyone, the Islamic
republic is now in a position to show magnanimity in the service of peace
and understanding If the US and its European Union allies play the roles
assigned to them in the Ahmedinejad script, the current crisis is likely to be
defused soon.
In a subsequent article, after having seen that Iran had not climbed
down, he came out with strong arguments supporting the military option. It
is so far so good for Tehran. The Islamic republic has thumbed its nose at
the international community at no cost to itself. There is no reason why
it should stop while the going is so good.
With the fall of the Taliban in Kabul and the Baath in Iraq, the old
balance of power in the Middle East has been shattered. A new balance of
power must emerge. US President George W Bush wants to create a new
Middle East that is democratic and pro-West. In such a Middle East there
would be no place for a regime such as the one currently in place in Tehran.

101

A US that is unable to fight on the ground for any length of time and
deterred from using nuclear weapons for fear of retaliation in kind against its
allies and troops in the region would, so the mullahs hope, do what it has
often done; i.e. running away, leaving Iran to emerge as the regional
superpower. Thus it is foolish to see Irans nuclear quest as a sign of
hubris on the part of the mad mullahs.
The Hindu disagreed by saying that it was nothing more than creating
and retaining strategic ambiguity. His declaration to this effect has not been
entirely overwhelmed by the manner in which the government-controlled
media hyped the breakthrough But, an attempt does appear to have
been made to retain a measure of strategic ambiguity. Such an approach
is understandable, given the situation Iran finds itself in.
Hassan Hanizadeh put across Iranian viewpoint. The illogical
reaction of the United States will undoubtedly have no effect on Irans
national will to move toward developing the complete nuclear fuel cycle
because gaining access to civilian nuclear energy is a national demand and
no power in the world can deprive Iran of this right.
Now, after three years of nuclear negotiations during which the
Islamic Republican accepted all the conditions of the West in order to gain
the confidence of the international community, Iran has chosen its true
path Enriching uranium within the framework of the regulations of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the inalienable right of every NPT
signatory state, so Iran has not violated the terms of the NPT by gaining
access to the nuclear fuel cycle Iran has now entered a critical phase in
its political history, and no foreign threat can diminish Irans national will to
reach the summit of scientific advancement.
In a subsequent article, he added, the most significant issue discussed
by the political analysts of the Persian Gulf littoral states on television talk
shows during the past week is the proximity of the Bushehr Nuclear Power
Plant to the Arab countries on the Persian Gulf In fact, the location of the
Bushehr Power Plant was determined by experts from the United States
and other Western countries during the 1960s after years of study, research,
and analysis In contrast Israels Dimona Nuclear Power Plant is located in
Negev Desert where the soil is loose, increasing the danger level.
The other issue being discussed by the political experts of the Arab
states of the Persian Gulf is the fact that Iran is becoming a regional
power In fact, the only country that should be worried about the
militarization of the Persian Gulf region is the Islamic Republic of Iran,
102

because the Arab states and other Western countries that have actually
paved the way for the permanent presence of US warships in the
Persian Gulf.
If the Arab states on the southern coast of the Persian Gulf that
currently believe that the United States is their security guarantee change
their views, a new chapter can be opened in their security and defence
cooperation with Iran.
To conclude some excerpts from the article of Peter Baker are
reproduced:
The Iranians seem unfazed by UN statements. The Russian and
Chinese wont go along with economic sanctions. And the generals at
the Pentagon hate the idea of a military strike.
The central problem for Bush, according to aides and analysts, is that
Iran has proven impervious so far to the diplomatic levers Washington
and its partners have been willing to use. Some administration
officials have grown increasingly skeptical that a solution can be
found, raising the prospect that, like North Korea before it, a second
member of the trio of rogue states Bush once dubbed the axis of evil
might ultimately develop a nuclear bomb over US objections.
Bushs chief political adviser, Karl Rove, complained during a
Houston appearance on that it is hard to find a diplomatic
resolution because Ahmedinejad is not a rational human being.
That has left Bush with few attractive alternatives. At this point,
your options seem to be not good and scarce, said Ray Takeyh, a
senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Your other option
is living with itand I think thats what will happen.
If he cannot convince Russia and China to toughen UN pressure on
Iran, though, he has few options, analysts said. He could organize
economic sanctions with a coalition of the willing in tandem with
the Europeans. Or he could offer Iran a more substantive deal.
Weve been trying coercive diplomacy and the Iranians have just sent
a very clear message: Nice try, it just wont work, said Clifford
Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group. The only diplomatic
option we havent tried is to cut a deal directly. We might as well
try putting everything on the table.

103

CONCLUSION
Insurgency has turned into civil war with Shias and Sunnis pitched
against each other. The sectarian bloodletting has allowed the occupation
forces to save on casualties as well as ousting Jaafari to have a Prime
Minister of their choice.
There was complete boycott of Hamas-led democratically elected
Palestinian government. This was an insult to Palestinian people who
exercised their right to choose a leadership of their choice. The Crusaders
were not satisfied with that and therefore have started coaxing Fatah to
undermine Hamas-rule.
Criticism of war and occupation of Iraq continued and Bush ratings
kept sliding downward. Many analysts from the civilized world opposed
military option mainly because the environments were not favourable; but
none of them desired that Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear
capability.
The gang of neo-cons led by Bush remained unnerved. The reason is
that entire lot of Republicans and Democrats fully support the Crusades
against Muslims. They seemed inclined to take on Iran in pursuance of the
Long War Strategy.
Irans nuclear capability is not the goal, but a pretext to bring regime
change in another Islamic country. The goal is to eliminate the only country
now left in the entire region which opposes US hegemonic policies. If
American threats materialize, Iran will regret restraining Iraqi Shiites from
resisting the occupation of Iraq.
22nd April 2006

104

TARGETED KILLINGS
The massacre in Nishtar Park Karachi, today, is a month-old story.
Time, as they say, is the best healer. Mourning has ended and tempers have
cooled down. The incident has lost its news-value for electronic as well as
print media. The analysts have exhausted their analytical wisdom.
There is no word from host of investigators assigned to probe the
tragedy. In Army the say; no news is good news. Thus, the government
officials in Islamabad must be happy that there is all quiet on Karachi front,
and normalcy seems to have returned.
The provincial government must be feeling elated over appreciations
conveyed personally by Crocker, for doing an excellent job in controlling the
situation after the incident of targeted killings. The aggrieved party, Sunni
Tehreek, after having cried for few days seemed to have realized the futility
of seeking or hoping for justice from the rulers totally committed to
eradication of Islamic militancy.
Another heinous crime seemed drifting towards the heap of the files
of untraced cases. The incident, however, will not be ignored by the
historians to come. Therefore, it merits be remembering, viewing and
reviewing, not once but periodically till the ends of justice are met.

EVENTS
Sunni Tehreek has been organizing Milad-e-Mustafa conference in
Nishtar Park, Karachi since decades. On 11th April, during the break for
Maghrib prayer a bomb blast killed 57 participants of the conference and
wounded about one hundred. Ten of the Tehreeks top religious scholars
were among the dead, including Iftikhar Bhatti, Muhammad Akram Qadri,
Abbas Qadri, Hafiz Muhammad Taqi, Haji Hanif Billu, Mufti Mukhtar
Ahmed, and Dr Abdul Qadeer.
The incident resulted in random violence against everything which
could be related to the government. Police and Rangers present in the
vicinity of site of the incident stayed away to avoid aggravation of the

105

situation. The people attending the conference organized the evacuation of

the casualties at their own.
Next day, Karachi remained gripped in tension. Complete strike was
observed in which three buses were burnt. Protests were also held in
Hyderabad, Lahore, Multan and other cities of the country. The cabinet was
briefed about the bomb blast and the government announced compensation
worth Rupees 300,000 for each dead and Rupees 50, 000 for each injured.
Sunni Tehreek gave an ultimatum of 48 hours to the government to
arrest the elements behind the attack or face the consequences. Shahid
Ghauri demanded resignation of the Sindh government. He termed it a
conspiracy of targeted killing to eliminate the whole party. He demanded
inquiry by military intelligence and provincial government in no case should
be associated with investigations.
He linked the attack to the killing of Muhammad Salim Qadri oneand-a-half-year ago and killing of Tahir Qadri, and four workers of Sunni
Tehreek last year in a single day. He also said that applications for the
security for the occasion were sent to all high-ups including President
because we were receiving continuous threatening calls. He regretted that
18 hours have passed but no government official has contacted them or sent
a message of condolence.
MMA suspected MQM hand in Karachi blast. MQM and Sunni
Tehreek have a history of enmity and MQM has been blamed in the past for
the killing of many a Sunni Tehreek leaders. Karachis terrorism incident is
not a Shia-Sunni clash as the Sunni Tehreek people had a smooth sailing
with Shia sect, said Qazi. He rejected probe under provincial government
and asked Musharraf to resign.
The law-enforcers held an injured, Hussain Balti, as suspect from a
hospital and shifted him to unknown place. Authorities were also keen to
interview two of the injured Hindus, Ramaish Kumar and Mangat. However,
by then suicide bombing had already been speculated and widely publicized.
On 13th April, troops were deployed in Karachi to restore calm.
Markets remained closed. Protesters torched some vehicles. President and
Prime Minister called for strict action against protesters. Sherpao insisted on
suicide bombing and the Opposition on conspiracy theory.
Three days after the incident, the site of bombing was sealed off to
preserve evidence. FIR was registered against unknown attackers; but
Sunni Tehreek was not satisfied. It gave April 29 deadline for culprits arrest.

106

Life in Karachi remained paralyzed. The same day, thirteen people were
wounded in two bomb blasts in New Delhis largest mosque. Indian Home
Minister ruled out terrorism and said someone had tried to be naughty.
On 15th April, Sindh government declared Nishtar Park incident as
suicide bombing. Prior permission was made mandatory for gatherings in
Sindh. The same day, the eve of Easter, an Italian magazine close to the
influential Catholic conservative Opus Dei group published a cartoon
depicting the Prophet (PBUH) in an objectionable manner.
Next day, Musharraf met Sunni Tehreek leaders and assured them that
the culprits of Karachi carnage will be apprehended and awarded stern
punishment. He mainly focused on lecturing religious leaders about
importance of eliminating extremism and militancy.
Mufti Muneebur Rehman expressed satisfaction over the meeting. He
said members of the delegation were satisfied with the outcome of the
meeting but were awaiting practical results. He said the president told the
delegation that he was personally monitoring the investigation.
Police claimed some progress in investigations. Rashid claimed
investigations were in advanced stage and the culprits will not go
unpunished. Since then nothing worthwhile was reported by government
controlled or private media, except Prime Ministers direction to security
agencies and civil administration to intensify efforts to trace out the culprits.
He said the government was determined to get to the bottom of the incident.
Crocker, while conveying condolence, praised the Sindh government
for effectively controlling the situation after the incident. On 4th May, a US
Congress-mandated commission recommended that Pakistan be designated a
country of particular concern (CPC). It was recommended in the light of
what it alleged is sectarian and religiously motivated violence persisting in
Pakistan.

VIEWS
Public reaction over the tragic incident was expressed
spontaneously. The grieved and enraged people did not allow Police or
Rangers to join in rescue and evacuation works. The men of these two law
enforcing agencies quickly realized that the safety lied in staying away.
The job done by the people was acknowledged by Ruby Malik from
Karachi. The only thing that gave us strength at this point was to see total
107

strangers volunteering to help the injured and tend to the dead side by side
the volunteers and workers of different organizations and jamaats. The
absence of the law enforcing agencies and other officials at the site was
glaring. They had stayed away fearing the mobs busy in rescue work.
Marghuz Khan from Peshawar wrote, this conspicuous disrespect
for our police and other law enforcing agencies is a reflection of our
mistrust on them due to their misconduct and malpractice. Incidents like
these signal the beginning of civil war and anarchy.
Afshan Syed from Bhakkar said, such bomb blasts do raise questions
in our minds regarding the security measures in the country Why wasnt
extensive search conducted of people entering the venue? Masooda Bano
opined that a state where people have to put their lives at risk every time
they join an innocent religious congregation clearly suffers from major
governance problems.
Muhammad Azhar Khawja from Karachi expressed similar views.
The government has failed miserably to provide security to the citizens.
The statements of apprehending the culprits and compensations by the
government are not acceptable especially when more than 50% police is
employed for the protection of VIPs at their residence, offices and on their
movements.
He added, if the concerned authorities do not resign, as is done in
civilized countries under such circumstances, they must be dismissed for
ineptitude, incompetence and inefficiency. Every time the government
lowers its guard, a terrorist attack takes place.
Rabia Abid from Islamabad wrote, protests and strikes after the bomb
blasts in Karachi revealed the public anger. But these cant bring relief or
comfort to those who have lost loved ones. Even more so I think the
Government of Pakistan remains stagnant and idle. Our ministers and top
officials are redundant. They are capable of only improving their lot but
have completely failed to do anything to improve the law and order
situation in the country.
Anila Butt from Islamabad said, it is not enough to say that those
behind the Nishtar Park blasts are not Muslims. The government should
provide an answer why such an attack occurred in the first place. The
onset of suicide attacks in Pakistan proves that the government has utterly
failed in its so-called war on terror.

108

Arresting more than 800 alleged terrorists to fill USA illegal

detention centres may be appreciable but some attention must be paid to the
terrorism at home. Instead of chasing ghost members of al-Qaeda in the
mountainous regions, there is need to focus on the violence that threatens the
lives of ordinary Pakistanis.
The agencies should show the same eagerness to nab those behind
the attacks as they showed after the attack on the Corps Commander Karachi
in 2004 (not the apathy displayed at the murder of Mufti Nizamuddin
Shamzai the same year) If the government keeps turning a blind eye to the
murderers of religious scholars, events like this will keep taking place. The
criminals should be made an example of, so that no one dares to carry out
similar acts in the future.
Syed A Mateen from Karachi said, the key of overcoming such
suicide attacks lies only and only in the hands of our law enforcing agencies.
One cannot expect the ordinary citizens of Pakistan to apprehend them.
Ikram Sehgal was not critical of the government failing. There have
been repeated questions for the past several months about an internal
security breakdown in Pakistan. Some have opined that matters have gone
beyond state control and we are already headed for anarchy. This not
true
An obvious public demand was conduct of a probe; impartial and
speedy. Masooda Bano rightly suggested that the scope of the probe should
be extended beyond finding the frontline operatives. The real culprits lie
deep behind these operators.
She wrote, since September 11, the government is increasingly
blaming these acts on suicide bombers If, however, suicide bombing is
actually becoming a norm in Pakistan then it is critical to take it more
seriously than the attention being paid to it right now It is important to
understand what is motivating the suicide bombers. Are the driven by
religious zeal, monetary incentives, or due to some sense of persecution?
What is their socio-economic background?
Given how keen the international community is to curb religious
extremism in Pakistan, lack of technical or monetary resources can no longer
justify a Pakistani governments inability to curb militant groups. Such
resources can be easily mobilized provided the government is committed to
address the problem. It is hard to believe that the government does not
know the militant groups, their whereabouts, and their financial sponsors.

109

Shahzadi Beg said, this should not, however, deter the government
from ensuring that a professional and independent investigation is carried
out and the results are made public. The governments ability to maintain
law and order is in question. This is do-or-die dilemma and may be the
governments most serious challenge yet.
She added, circumstances demand that terrorist offences be properly
investigated rather than being reacted to. A cohesive long-term strategy is
required. This may mean not only setting up an independent public enquiry
but also tasking a special law enforcing group such as the Special
Investigation Group set up in 2003 under the FIA, whose members were
trained by the Americans to tackle terrorist offences. Any such group must
be provided with resources with security of tenure as well as security of
person. Appropriate safe guards must be ensured against corruption and
political interference.
The hopes for the outcome of the probe were not high. Kamal
Matinuddin observed, unfortunately the perpetrators of these heinous
crimes and their planners, more often than not, remain at large. Those who
planned the assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan have still not been traced. The
mystery of Bahawalpur plane crash remains unresolved. Beijings request
that the killers of the Chinese workers be apprehended has not yet been
fulfilled. The results of investigation of the massacre in Hangu and the
explosion at the shrine of Barri Imam lie buried in the files of the protectors
of our lives and property.
The News wrote, it could be argued that little would come of the
probe. The pessimism would be understandable because too many of such
exercises have proved fruitless in the past. On the other hand, the result
wont be known until the investigation is completed, and there is no harm in
optimism.
The daily newspaper condemned the onset of blame game in the
wake of the tragedy. Musharrafs order is a positive move. At least his
instructions to the intelligence agencies to trace the criminals behind the
slaughter arent something up in the air, like the name-calling and the
baseless, tit-for-tat accusations we are hearing since Tuesday evening. The
only concrete thing these can produce is fanning the flames.
In a subsequent editorial, it urged that there should be no deadlines or
ultimatums. The anger of the organizations which lost leaders and officials
in the tragedy is perfectly understandable. Their grief not only deserves
sympathy, but given the atrocitys magnitude, it becomes a kind of social
110

demand that those behind the Nishtar Park incident be brought to justice.
However, even in Pakistan with its tattered institutions, this must be done
through the process of law, not by lynch mobs
The violent reaction of the people on the spot bounced back and many
re-targeted the already targeted. Tehreem Mahmood from Karachi was of the
view that sticks with some participants indicated that everything was
preplanned. The most astonishing fact was the sudden use of sticks in the
violence. Why would anyone bring these to an otherwise peaceful event? It
all seemed scripted; otherwise there was no reason to carry sticks to a
gathering which was meant to be peaceful.
Haris Aziz from Coventry, UK joined in stoning the hyped criminal.
One could point fingers at foreign hands if it had been a bomb blast.
However, it is sad reality that such suicide bombings could only have been
carried by extremely radicalized Muslims The suicide bombing in
Nishtar Park shows the nihilistic mentality of Jihadist extremists. It is
time the government cleans up the sectarian militia mess in the country.
Nationalists, like Aneela Chandio from Hyderabad, availed the
opportunity to grind their axe. It is unfortunate that some people want to
change the demography of Sindh, in order to multiply their constituency, and
the regime allows this unchecked illegal migration to occur. In Karachi any
person can get a national identity card on payment of Rupees 2,000, because
they are sponsored by some councilors.
She pointed finger towards MQM. Pakistans national security is
being compromised at the altar of political exigencies of a junta, whose
source of power is an institution entrusted with the defence of the
motherland. Any terrorist can enter this country from across the border.
Even the government indulged in the blame game, according to
Farhad Khan from Peshawar. It has become the norm for our authorities to
relate such tragic incidents with world terrorism and thereby escape from
taking any responsibility The Sunni Tehreek has pointed fingers at certain
quarters in Karachi not only for the tragedy but some previous ones, too. It is
hoped that some heads would roll in the upper cadre of the Sindh
government as a result How long the authorities would come up with the
lame excuse of suicide bombing
Naeem Sadiq criticized provincial governments pretended mourning.
The children will joyfully play cricket for three days. Much of the business
will remain shut. The leaders will nauseatingly pronounce the same old
hackneyed platitudes. The inquiry will yield the same results as all the
111

previous inquiries have done so inconclusively. Pakistan will slide behind

the rest of the world by yet another three days.
Some people talked about conspiracy theory. Muhammad Riaz
from Malakand Agency wrote, a conspiracy is being hatched against
Muslims as such incidents are occurring in other Muslim countries as well.
In Iraq enemies of Islam seem to be in full control of the situation and the
two major sects are being projected as enemies of each other.
Muslims of the world, especially of Pakistan and Iraq, will have to
act wisely and must be wary of the conspiracies being hatched against them.
The internal disputes between various sects of Muslims will weaken them
and make them more vulnerable to the enemy. The enemies of Islam are
dividing the Muslims to cash in on their fighting.
Intellectuals like Imtiaz Alam rejected such theories. Leading
clerics would have us believe that it is always an alien hand or an antiMuslim, American-Jewish-Hindu conspiracy that is at constant work behind
such sectarian killings. This is how they reinforce Huntingtons prejudicial
Clash of Civilizations, and knowing well who is at whose throat. The beast
is within and the problem is deep-rooted in Muslim history. It can be proved
by a vast reservoir of empirical data on Muslims killing Muslims. Shouldnt
we identify the beast and expose the skeletons we have been trying to hide in
our so-called sacred cupboards for too long?
Kamal Matinuddin also rejected these theories but for different
reason. To absolve themselves of the responsibility our agencies
immediately point their fingers towards an external hand. He added,
the ultra-religious parties and some retired senior military officers continue
to pin the blame on the Americans, who, according to them, do not want to
see the only nuclear Muslim state prosper. The Indian bashers, including
some intellectuals, see RAW lurking in every corner. And now the Karzai
administration is being included, by the pro-Taliban elements in our tribal
areas, as our enemy number three.
Noman Sattar was of the view that this incident defies the civilization
clash viewpoint. Attack on a religious gathering in Pakistan is a clash
within the civilization, unless there is solid proof of a hand from another
civilization. Terrorist activity within Pakistan, sectarian or otherwise, is
adding to, and revising the Clash of Civilizations thesis.
He avoided accusing any particular segment of the society of
perpetrating violence, and instead preferred to generalize the issue. Since
112

the Afghan Jihad, Pakistan has served as a convenient venue for the
terrorists for recruitment, training and raising funds, and funneling
equipment across the borders. After 9/11, Pakistan became a convenient
rendezvous for the terrorists, and later a popular playground Even if the
blast was the result of suicide bombing it does not really solve the puzzle
about the perpetrators and their objective.
Kamal Matinuddin had similar views. We have drifted apart only
because we are not prepared to respect each others beliefs. We just cannot
tolerate petty differences in the practice of our common faith. Each
believing that his interpretation is the right one and others should be
compelled to change their beliefs. Some of us have gone to the extent of
motivating and training people to die for the misplaced cause.
Masooda Bano, however, was quite specific. A government which is
routinely carrying out military operations not only against militants in the
tribal belts, but also nationalist tribesmen in Baluchistan resulting in deaths
of countless civilians including women and children cannot justify being
soft on known militant or Jihadi groups.
The News spared Sunni Tehreek by not equating them with Jihadis,
but urged its Ulema to help the government in fight against militancy.
Appeal to Ulema by President Musharraf that they help the government
fight fanaticism is another reminder of that extremism does exist in a small
minority of Muslims. This incident resulted yet again in Pakistan and
Muslims being defamed.
Since some false religious leaders in Pakistan like the jihadis have
been instrumental in its creation, it falls to our Ulema in general to exorcise
the demon. The clerical organizations that lost leaders and officials in the
bombing, and 17 of whose leading members met the president, is at least not
jihadi With their control of pulpit, Ulema are in a very good position to
discourage fanatical ideas and philosophies.
When the topic turns to enemy within, the sectarian militancy in
Pakistan cannot be ignored. However, involvement of this evil force in
Nishtar Park attack was not suspected by most of the analysts. Masooda
Bano said, in this particular case there is nothing to indicate that a
sectarian Shia group has planned the attack. Which other constituency
might benefit from planning this attack has to be explored. This, however,
requires an efficient investigation from government officials, which given
the past record, is unlikely to follow.

113

Zulfiqar Shah supported the argument. Shah Turab ul Haq, a senior

leader of the Jamiat Ahl-e-Sunnat who narrowly escaped the blast, tells
TNS: We are not against any sect nor do we have an enmity. It is part of a
big conspiracy of anti-Islam forces and it is the responsibility of the
government to expose those involved in this heinous crime.
Despite the fact that most observers have ruled out sectarian factor in
the incident, M B Naqvi availed the occasion to shed tears for the Shias and
rub Sunnis for violence, ignoring the fact that in this case they were at the
receiving end. The point is most Pakistanis are a rich raw material from
which suicide bombers can be made. Hitherto all cases of terror have had
some mention of Pakistan all cases in UK, Europe and America.
He added, Peshawar has eclipsed all major Islamic centres. It seemed
as if Pakistan was the world headquarters of a rising global Islamic
Revolution. Much money of western powers and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
UAE had gone into it in the 1980s. An infrastructure of such an ideology had
emerged among many small groups in Pakistan and elsewhere. It is truly an
international phenomenon. It is a different matter that Islamabad is now
embarrassed following the change in American preferences after 9/11.
Following the heroic deeds of Hamas and Iraqi suicide bombers,
Taliban have begun producing their own suicide bombers in both areas
of Taliban interest: Afghanistan and Pakistan where the recalcitrant Shia
minority invited their attention. Suicide bombing attacks on Afghan and or
western targets are no longer news nor are such attacks on Shia
congregations in Karachi and elsewhere unheard of. Taliban exhibit the glow
of popularity and power at least in the two Waziristans where they maintain
law and order, they collect taxes, try and execute those they think are evil
doers. Pakistans forces stay in their camp and allow Taliban to do pretty
much as they pleased.
Inside Baluchistan they also indulge in their taste for Shia blood.
Not that the Taliban did not have recruits from Karachi and other areas of
Punjab. The whole country abounds in pious Muslims who contribute
money, protect Islamic revolutionaries and provide them the cover.
He complained, the evidence so far suggests that Pakistan is ruthless
where al-Qaeda is concerned But where Taliban are concerned, well, the
severity of Pakistan action is conspicuous by its absence The issue of
issues for Pakistan today is the prevalence of intolerance, especially
religious and political. Taliban power in Baluchistan, FATA and even NWFP,

114

is bad news After objecting to religious parties government in NWFP, he

lectured on secular democracy.
In this country people have taken secular politics to mean something
anti-religious. Secularism refuses to pronounce on religion; this is simply
outside the scope Why not settle for a simple secular democracy that
gives something to all citizens, especially the hope of betterment of their life
for now? It makes no eternal or para-human promises and it allows for the
evolution of political and economic solutions to suit the people.
In balloon blown out by Naqvi in the face of Sunni extremists, Ikram
Sehgal saw an evil altogether different. Widespread Shia-Sunni strife is
most glaring in Iraq where things are rapidly spinning out of control. The
carnage in Karachi was professionally planned and meticulously executed. It
was not only Sunni-specific but also specifically meant to create a blood
cycle of Sunnis reacting against Shias
Apart from the victims of the attack, many suspected that it was the
result of political rivalry, but no one out rightly pointed finger toward
MQM, whose political militancy is an established fact. Zulfiqar Shah
preferred to say that indirectly.
By all indications, Tuesdays blast was a well-planned act of
terrorism as it targeted the leadership instead of the common participants.
The planners succeeded in their motives The Sindh government says it has
a strong suspicion the Nishtar Park blast was a suicide attack
Unfortunately you cant stop suicide bombing; even super powers like
America cannot stop that, argues home minister Rauf Siddiqui.
Shahzadi Beg said that taking cover of the statements of religious
leaders. Sectarian groups in Karachi have publicly stated that they have
little confidence in the local police investigating the Nishtar Park incident,
fearing political interference. The blame game provides a dangerous
political dimension in the backdrop to the present enquiry into the Karachi
bombing.
The News did it by advising JI and MQM that it is imperative for the
two parties to nominate credible representatives and initiate a dialogue on
developing a code of conduct for them to follow. Such extravagant
accusations as have surfaced now only tarnish the credibility of the
political parties and further distance an already disillusioned people from the
political process.

115

Ikram Sehgal also urged the political rivals to cool down. The
hostility between the two major parties in Karachiintensified after the
bomb blast. Both the parties need to cool it and cool it fast. Their
responsibility is to look after the interests of millions of their constituents
Iqbal Mustafa was slightly specific. The bombing incident at Nishtar
Park, Karachi, bears an ominous testament to the failure of the government
to contain ideologically motivated violence at strategic and tactical levels.
The first step the government must take is to distance itself from militant
political forces; it will appear to be guilty of complicity in crimes of
communal violence. Without neutrality, the investigations would lead to
cover ups rather than apprehension of criminals.
Will the government descend from the clouds it is hiding its head in?
Perhaps so much blood will be compelling enough but then power politics
is such a soiled occupation that no one has the luxury of starting from a
clean state; this government is no exception.
Ammara Durrani discussed various theories in some detail.
Musharraf ruled out any link of the attack to international terrorism of
al-Qaeda, saying it could be the handiwork of sectarian elements
Religious groups have turned the sectarian theory around by casting
allegations at the MQM for targeting the steady rise of Islamist groups in
Sindh, and stretching the blame to global anti-Islam attempts of the US and
Zionists.
MMA said FBIs inclusion in investigation of Nishtar Park
tragedy was adding to concerns of religious forces. FBIs inclusion in
investigation is aimed at distorting facts, blaming al-Qaeda or any other fake
organization and promoting sectarian violence in the country.
JUI alleged that terrorists were in control of Sindh government
and the Federal Law Ministry had given urban areas of Sindh in control of a
particular ethnic terrorist outfit, that was engaged in massacre of political
opponents, Ulema and religious people without fear.
Despite his recent tiff with the governor, the Sindh chief minister also
appeared to be shielding his competitor for power against this growing
political backlash, when he was quoted saying that leveling charges against
the governor and home minister was not in the interest of the nation
and the country.
Police chief of the province said, any particular person, group or
party was not the target; rather, it was a multi-purpose terrorism act

116

aimed at killing innocent people to create law and order situation and
damage the countrys image at international level.
Almost everyone agreed on the need to curb militancy and
violence. Shafqat Mahmood asked, what is behind it? Politics, sectarianism,
deliberate destabilization? What ever it is, it requires close monitoring and
ceaseless vigilence This situation cannot be allowed to grow and get out
of control.
Kamila Hyat opined, as part of the effort to win a war that may take
years of struggle, there is need to expand the base of support for antimilitancy policies. There is need to persuade ordinary people of the
immense damage that the unending series of blasts and targeted shootings
are inflicting, and to bring before them the faces of people who have
suffered such outrageous devastation to their lives as a result of striking
virtually anywhere and at anytime.
Dr M S Jillani said, religious leadership should encourage its
adherents to acquire knowledge of the world, and seek education to compete
with followers of other religions and other nations, and develop a positive
view of everything on this planet instead of spending time on minor
differences with others. It needs to be realized that all sects and factions of
Islam have common enemies. There is no shortcut on this course. Religious
extremism, hatred and the tendency to incite others, by showing off, can
only be remedied by acquainting the religious community, especially their
teachers with modern thinking and new opportunities in life. The end
objective should be to co-exist as Muslims rather than as members of sects
and factions.
Shireen M Mazari wrote, militarization of the society has become
ingrained as violence is seen as an answer to all disagreements amongst
ourselves no matter how petty the issue. Whether it is rival student groups
or siblings or spouses or political or religious groups. From the micro to the
macro levels of society, we seem to revel in the use of violence. Our
language for ourselves is violent; our responses to even the most minor of
provocations is violent and, of course, no political or religious gathering can
be held without an adequate display of weapons.
The violence is, of course, the means or expression of a growing
intolerance for diversity amongst us. Be it the religious or secular extremist,
self-righteousness embodies a lack of tolerance for the other. Our socalled western liberals are not prepared to see any good in any form of
religious expression or school, while our religious pontiffs condemn all
117

opponents as un-realistic. The space to co-exist is disappearing fast and the

rising tide of intolerant self-righteousness will sweep us all in its wave of
destruction.
What is the reason for this air of resignation and fatalism? At some
level, the ruling elite, of all varieties, must take responsibility at the
macro level, at least. Over the decades, their unresponsiveness to the people;
their abuse of this wonderful land and its resources and, their complete lack
of commitment to a sense of nationalism, while pushing forward factional
and personal interests, has unleashed a similar looking out for oneself
mindset within the nation.
She mentioned the failings in two fields; democracy and education,
which could help in inculcation of tolerance and then added, while
intolerance for each other is becoming a hallmark within our society, our
fatalism and sense of resignation is making us overly tolerant of abuse
from outside. With our larger neighbour India, we are desperately seeking
conflict resolution even though it is clear they are more interested in conflict
management or the imposition of solutions. The arrogance of the Indian state
has been increasing as we have become more accommodating and nothing
reflects this more clearly than their offer of the so-called peace and
friendship treaty which they suggest should leave Kashmir out of its ambit.
Nor are we taking abuse only from the Indians. Mr Bush came here to
check whether his friend, President Musharraf was still serious, about
his commitment against terrorism
Our sense of resignation has become so pronounced that we are
unable to offer any strong response to the abuse being heaped on us
from external forces Again, while we hold nothing back in the language
we use against each other, we have become overly circumspect in
responding to external machinations against our nation. Even Mr Karzai,
who can barely keep his governments writ in Kabul, has found himself able
to hurl accusations at us and make demands on us ad nauseam.
We need to overcome our seeming air of defeatism in external
dealings because we are not as weak as we seem to be feeling and the
problem is in our elites psyche. At the same time, we need to break out of
our intolerant and violent mode within the domestic framework
Ikram Sehgal was of the view that Pakistan has been successful in the
war against terrorism. We were similarly successful in the Afghan war but
happy with the victory of the Mujahideen we did not prepare for post-war

118

trauma. This time around we need to be prepared to meet the challenge

posed by those who want to see Pakistan destabilized.

REVIEW
Pakistan by virtue of being frontline state could not avoid becoming
battle ground for different types of forces pitched against each other in
the war on terror. As the war has been raging for about half a decade, many
belligerent forces, not linked to Americas war on terror, have also become
active to settle the scores. Resultantly, Pakistan has turned into a stage for
multiple actors of militancy.
The war began with fighting between the Crusaders and Islamic
militant group of al-Qaeda and their religious minded hosts; Taliban. Then it
turned into hunting of foreign fighters who fled Afghanistan and took refuge
in Pakistan. This led to the phenomenon of urging Pakistan to do more.
The Crusaders kept pressing the government of Pakistan to act Mulla,
Mosque and Madrassa, which according to them were the source of Islamic
militancy. With the launching of crackdown against religious institutions, the
war turned into conflict between fundamentalism and enlightened
moderation.
The forces targeted by security forces of Pakistan turned against the
ruling elite which resulted in assassination attempts on president and prime
minister. The failed attempts came handy for the Crusaders and they often
mentioned these to arouse personal vendetta of the rulers of frontline state.
Meanwhile, India took advantage of the situation, indulged in
brinkmanship and succeeded in coercing Pakistan to accept that supporting
Kashmiri freedom fighters was nothing but cross border terrorism. Pakistan
launched a crackdown against all those setups who supported the resolution
of the core issue. Pakistans security forces were thus pitched against
Jehadis. Afghanistan took lead from India and leveled allegations of cross
border terrorism, forcing Pakistan to do more and more against Pushtoons
resisting occupation of Afghanistan and threatening Karzais rule. Jihadis
and Pushtoons resisting occupation of Afghanistan were alienated.
The sectarian strife which existed before the start of war on terror did
not die down. It was a readily available enemy within, which could be used
by the enemies of Pakistan as and when required. Some of the sectarian
killings in the recent past cannot be seen in isolation of the sectarian strife in
Iraq, which have been aired by the occupation forces with ulterior motives.

119

India and Afghanistan decided to administer some of the cross border

medicine to Pakistan. This resulted in continuous violence in tribal areas and
lately into another armed confrontation between nationalist Baluchis and the
state of Pakistan. Meanwhile, political militancy in Karachi continued
resulting in many killings.
All the above belligerent forces are quite different from each other,
but they have one thing in common; all of them, no matter on which side of
the divide they stand, resort to terrorists tactics. The government agencies
term opponents acts of militancy as terrorism, while their own acts,
including targeted-killings, are claimed as successes for the holy cause.
Thus, Suicide bombing, targeted killings, collateral damage, force
protection, prisoners torture are all forms of terrorism.
Bearing the above in mind, the events and comments enumerated
above can be reviewed. The government cannot absolve itself of failing in
protecting lives of its citizens. The negligence in this case becomes
more glaring in view of the prior requests for arranging security for the
occasion.
Anila Butt from Islamabad has asked the government to provide an
answer why such an attack occurred in the first place. The reason is quite
evident. Pakistans law enforcing and security agencies are so heavily
committed in protecting interests of the West that they are left with little to
do thankless job of protecting lives of Pakis.
Under pressure of the Crusaders, the government has been distracted
from fighting the genuine terrorism, which endangers security of
Pakistanis; individually and collectively. In fact, by launching ruthless
operations or crackdowns against groups supporting freedom movement in
Kashmir and Pushtoons resisting occupation of their country, it has caused
spread of terrorism.
The gravity of the Nishtar Park bombing warranted removal of
provincial government, but the Centre could not dare doing that, because its
removal would have resulted in dissolution of federal government. The
ruling coalition has virtually become hostage of MQM. It was said in one
of the previous discussions, and can be repeated here that this nationalist
entity could prove most dangerous to peace and stability of the country.
The meticulously planned and well-executed Nishtar Park attack in
muddled security situation in Pakistan was bound to result in blame game.
Religious parties, which happened to be the political rivals of MQM,
120

suspected it in view of targeted elimination of opponents in the last few

years. MQM, taking advantage of the general impression created by the
ongoing war on terror, blamed religious extremists.
There was nothing drastically wrong with the victim party suspecting
MQM. In every criminal case the investigators invariably start with asking
the victim about his/her suspicion about anyone. This generally is the
starting point of most investigations. Their suspicion was based on strong
circumstantial evidence. But, blaming the victims was quite irrational.
Moreover, it was done by claiming that it was a suicide attack, even before
the start of a probe. Sunni Tehreek has never indulged in targeted killing or
suicide bombing.
Musharraf did not like JI blaming the party of Altaf Bhai, whereas he
and his band of enlightened moderates have been accusing religious
parties, day in and day out, for terrorism without sufficient evidence;
whereas JI produced a long list of targeted killings carried out by MQM. The
hurling of blames, however, proved one thing for certain that nobody in the
country who matters has any clue about the real culprits.
When enraged protesters resorted to violence, the victims were
blamed for disrupting the normal life. Some even said that it was all stage
managed, because there was sudden use of sticks by the protesters. It
implied that bomb blast which killed dozens of people was carried out to
create conditions for use of sticks; ridiculous.
Most analysts targeted Jihadis simply that the attack seemed to be the
work of a suicide bomber. It has been taken for granted that suicide bombing
can only be carried out by Jihadis. In fact, this theory was first prompted
by an ex-Indian intelligence high-up from across the border. He said that this
could be an act of Jihadis involved in IHK, because parties included in Sunni
Tehreek opposed militant approach.
A few suspected that it could be an incident of sectarian killing,
despite the fact that this possibility was ruled out. Experts like M B Naqvi
simply availed the opportunity to rub some salt into the wounds of the
victims. All these hypotheses led to theory of clash within the civilization.
The clash within Pakistani society cannot be refuted, but it cannot be
used to rule out strong possibility a conspiracy. The very existence of clash
within is enough to invite trouble from outside enemy. The exploitation of
the dissidents is the stated part of the strategy of ongoing war.

121

The most dangerous enemy is the one who wears the garb of an ally or
friend. Muslim World has yet to determine the true nature their
relationship with America. Muslim rulers consider America their friend,
but Muslims masses across the world generally take it as an enemy.
There are some differences within the Muslim people as well. In Iraq,
Sunni Arabs consider America an enemy, but Shiites and Kurds consider it a
friend. In Palestine, Fatah is a friend and Hamas an enemy of the US.
Similarly, in Afghanistan Panjsheris have friendly relations with US-led
forces and most Pushtoons are resisting the occupation. Situation in many
other Muslim countries is quite similar. In Pakistan it has not yet crystallized
in terms of friendship or enmity within different ethnic groups, but there is
another kind of division; the religious fundamentalists are the enemy of
America and enlightened moderates are taken as friends.
Shia-Sunni divide in Iraq has been cleverly exploited by the
Crusaders to weaken the resistance through constant bleeding. This has
helped them in many ways; critics focus has been taken off the occupation
forces; own casualties have been reduced; and leaders of various factions
have been coerced to take dictations hoping for an end to the engineered
civil war.
The Crusaders would like to spread the sectarian hatred to win
support for imposing sanctions or military action against Shiite Iran.
Although this could prove double edged weapon, yet the Crusaders believe
that it could serve their cause of demonizing Iranians.
The arousing of Shia-Sunni hatred could also help in destabilizing
Pakistan, which in turn could be used as pretext to neutralize its nuclear
deterrence. Some of the attacks on religious gatherings in the recent past,
like the one in Hangu, have to be seen in this context. It has to be noted that
Pakistan has been recently recommended to be included in the US list of
Countries of Particular Concern.
Another aim of the Crusaders is to demonize the suicide bombing.
They have failed to counter this threat with all the military might at their
disposal. For the groups resisting occupation of Iraq and of late in
Afghanistan it has been an equivalent of daisy-cutters or bunker-busters.
Western media has equated the suicide bombing with Islamic
fanaticism. The Crusaders had been pressing hard on Muslim clergy to
declare suicide bombing un-Islamic. It could be possible that this attack is
aimed at luring Ulema to come out with a FATWA declaring such attacks
against the teachings of Islam.
122

It could also be an act of targeted killing. One of the possible aims

of publication of blasphemous cartoons was to identify future targets being
intolerant to values of the western civilization. Sunni leaders had been on
the forefront purely for religious reasons, whereas many others did it for
reasons other than the religion. It is worth mention that the act of blasphemy
was repeated on the eve of Easter soon after the Nishtar Park blast.
Elimination of anti-US and anti-West individuals is one of the goals of
this ongoing holy war. If an ordinary Paki like Amir could be eliminated by
Germany, the other active Crusaders can do much more than that. It must be
remembered that targeted killings of learned people has been widely
carried out in Iraq, Afghanistan and even in Pakistan.
In conspiracy theory, India emerges automatically. India has been
quite active in its efforts to destabilize Pakistan ever since it came into
being. Now it has been formally baptized as strategic partner in Crusades
against Islamic militancy. The naughty act of bomb blasts in New Delhi
mosque could be an attempt to smoke screen Nishtar Park bombing.
America wont do it naively. It would take all the precautions to
keep its activities clandestine. But, the gesture of Crocker to appreciate
provincial governments efforts to control the situation effectively after the
bomb blast raises some suspicion. MQMs minister for domestic affairs
became the only second Pakistani to receive commendation from America.
Was it done to pre-empt finger-pointing towards America?
The foregoing makes it amply clear that agencies assigned the task of
probing have a very complicated riddle at their hand. They must not be
misled by the political authorities, who immediately after the incident
suspected suicide bombing. The motive was obvious; they wanted to throw
it back onto religious fanatics.
The very first thing they must establish with certainty, even if it was a
suicide bombing, is that whether it was act of terrorism or targeted killing.
The latter is invention of the superpower and adopted by many ruling juntas
in Muslim countries.
The site of the crime was sealed off three days after the bombing to
preserve evidence. The delayed access to the site of the crime and measures
taken to preserve the evidence has further complicated the task of the
investigators. It could have resulted in loss of vital evidence.
Such incidents in Pakistan, as already discussed, could have any of the
long list of possible motives. One, it could be ethnic rivalry and Karachi has
123

experienced linguistic militancy in the past, but in this case it can be safely
ruled out as the targets belonged to all parts of the country. Two, Karachi has
also experienced sectarian militancy, but most analysts have ruled it out.
Three, the motive could be political; MQM vs JI.
Fourth, it could be the new form of clash within the civilization, i.e.
religion vs secularism or fundamentalism and enlightenment. If that be the
case, then Clash of Civilizations automatically comes in, because other kinds
of divisions have not been polarized to the extent that they would resort to
such militancy.
Lastly, it could be a case of foreign intervention for which there are
sufficient reasons and history to corroborate. In this case, possibility of
MQM joining hand with them cannot be ruled out because its political
interests and geo-political interests of the Crusaders converge onto the
common enemy; the Muslim clergy in Pakistan.
This party is led by men who already having plenty of blood on their
hands. Both believe in eliminating their opponents. Moreover, partys
established headquarters in London facilitate inter-action with like-minded
foreign forces without being under surveillance of Pakistani intelligence
agencies.
The above inferences lead to some possibilities. It could be the work
of Crusaders, proxy crusaders or MQM. It is also possible that any two of
the three might have collaborated with quiet consent of the third. If it is so,
findings, if not distorted deliberately, will remain classified for reasons that
Pakistan is an ally of the first in holy war, the second is partner in the peace
process and the last is governments vital coalition partner.
Militancy or violence is the serious problem faced by the world today.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal discussed the causes behind this menace and suggested
the solution. He wrote, violence is the product of a violent inner fissure
within the perpetrators of the crime, a breakdown of humanness, a total
plunge into the dark abyss of non-humanity. Given the existential nature of
humanity, the person committing such random violence sinks into the raw
animal form, negating all traits of the spirit infused into the physical body
thus endowed with reason, intellect, compassion, mercy, and love. This kind
of violence was almost unheard of until our own times.
We are witnessing a time in which the killer does not why he is
killing and the killed do not know why they are being killed; this is precisely
what a Prophetic saying had foretold. The time mentioned by the Prophet of

124

Islam (PBUH) is now at hand. No one knows how this raw and random
violence is begotten and no one has a clue how to stop it. The news flashes
seen or heard in horror are forgotten as soon as the next day or the day after;
no one even has time for mourning; such is the speed of events.
Violence begets violence, an age-old axiom tells us. What violence
have people of these traditional Islamic lands suffered, that they continue to
produce more violence? What has robbed them of their humanity to such
an extent that the cycle of violence does not stop? What is so rotten in
their psyche that they have forgotten the sanity of life so central to the
message of Islam? Your blood and lives and properties are inviolable, the
Prophet of Islam (PBUH) had said on the day he delivered his farewell
sermon. He also said that a Muslim is the one from whose hands and tongue
another Muslim remains safe. What, then, is so corrupted in the minds and
hearts of those who continue to blast bombs in crowded places,
indiscriminately killing the young and the old? Do they not see any
consequences of their deeds?
Of course, we must distinguish between the raw and meaningless
violence of the kind so often witnessed in Pakistan from the armed
resistance of oppressed people whose lands are occupied by foreign armies.
Resistance against oppression is a duty of every Muslim, we are told by
none other than the Prophet (PBUH) himself What is abhorrent, therefore,
is not resistance against foreign occupations, but the kind of violence that
has no meaning whatsoever.
Those who merely wish to find scapegoats are quick to label this
raw and meaningless violence as religious extremism. This is, indeed, a
meaningless way out of a meaningless situation. A term empty of content is
applied to a real phenomenon and the matter is considered closed. Religions,
especially Islam, cannot be extreme by definition, for Islam is the middle
path, the most noble of all paths. If anything, it is an extreme departure from
Islam, which brings a person or a group to such a horrible state of violence.
If this breakdown of humanity occurs through a process, then what
are the ingredients of that process? A total absence of religion consciousness
that is to say, a total oblivion to the reality of life and the Hereafter must
be the most important factor in the process, for all other factors (poverty,
lack of education, and the like) are secondary.
Thus, rather than being a result of religious extremism, violence of
the kind we are discussing is a product of an absence of religion. It is the
absence of the consciousness of the Creator and the entire range of beliefs
125

associated with that consciousness that produces this descent of humanity.

When human beings are left to their own selves, without the shining light of
faith, reason breaks down under stress and rationality gives way to total
blindness.
It requires special kind of circumstances to produce this breakdown
of the rational mind. That special combination of helplessness, poverty,
despair, and extreme awareness of futility of everything is present in the
Muslim lands now. This is why we see this kind of violence in these lands.
Occasional scenes of such raw violence can also be seen in those societies
where the absence of religion has become a norm. An American high school
student, for instance, takes a gun and randomly shoots at his class fellows.
But such a breakdown of the rational mind is rare in those societies because
the other factors (poverty, despair, helplessness, meaninglessness, etc.) are
not so profound.
In the traditional lands of Islam, people cannot live without religious
consciousness, because religion is all around them; when they do, their
rational minds break down sooner than those living in societies where
religion is not a public phenomenon anymore The remedy is either
complete elimination of Islam from the public sphere, as is being
proposed by various Western thinkers and their clients, or a true return to
Islam. The former will lead to the destruction of Islam as a living religion in
the Muslim lands, the latter to a blissful state of existence in the here and
now as well as in the Hereafter. The choice is obvious.
7th May 2006

126

DOING MORE RISKING MORE

Ever-ungrateful Kabul under direction of ever-demanding Crusaders
on the eve of tripartite commission meeting in Rawalpindi once again asked
the ever-obedient Islamabad to do more. Pakistan responded by saying that it
has done more than its share, but the share of frontline state remains
unlimited and unspecified.
During first week of May, Abizaid visited GHQ, but discussed war on
terror with Musharraf and lauded his policies against terrorism. Pakistan and
US agreed to enhance intelligence sharing for combating terrorists. The socalled sharing will remain one-way.
Earlier Richard Boucher denied reports that the US sought to distance
itself from Musharraf. He supported Musharrafs strategic goals of
enlightened moderation and democracy. The mention of democracy by
American president and subsequently by US officials resulted in political
hustle in Pakistan.
Nothing significant happened in the context of peace process with
India. While India achieved a lot in choking cross border terrorism in IKH,
Pakistan was finding it hard to do so in Baluchistan. The quest for soft image
suffered a setback when an NGO in US placed Pakistan sixth in the rankings
of failed states.

SERVING CRUSADRES
War against Pushtoons for Afghan peace continued. Following
incidents were reported in last three weeks:
Parts of Afghan border were sealed on 17 th April to prevent militants
entering from Pakistan. Two suspected militants were arrested in
Peshawar.
On 18th April, villagers held protest march and blocked the road to
demand removal of Afghan refugees camps in Jallozai and Bital.
Residents abandoned Anghar Killay due to fear of another attack.
127

Bodies of five men were removed from graves, reportedly for DNA
tests. Next day, body of a US-spy was found near Wana. Four FC
soldiers were wounded in landmine blast in North Waziristan.
On 20th April, a convoy was ambushed in North Waziristan killing 8
FC soldiers and wounding 26 others. Six suspected militants were
killed in retaliatory action in which gunship helicopters were used.
Miranshah and Mirali came under rocket attack. An Arab national and
a Khassadar were killed and two other wounded in Bajaur Agency.
Militants ransacked a check post of Khassadars near Miranshah on
21st April and took away the weapons. Next day, troops came under
rocket attack in North Waziristan.
On 23rd April, three tribesmen and two FC soldiers were killed in
North Waziristan in different incidents. Next day, one suspected
militant was killed by troops near a post in South Waziristan. Militants
patrolled Miranshah and burnt newspapers in Mirali.
Three soldiers were killed and 14 wounded when three vehicles were
damaged in an ambush near Dattakhel on 25th April. Three attackers
were also killed in retaliation in which Pak and US aircraft
participated. An Afghan bomb maker and four members of his family
were killed when the device exploded near Quetta.
On 26th April, an FC soldier was wounded in a blast in North
Waziristan. Musharraf announced Rupees 10 billion for uplift of
FATA and said army would withdraw if tribesmen expel foreign
militants. Next day, militants and FC troops exchanged fire for two
hours on road Miranshah-Razmak.
Local Taliban commander was killed and his three companions were
wounded by a man in Tank on 30th April. Al-Qaeda claimed attack on
US Consulate in Karachi. Next day, a pro-government tribal elder was
killed in North Waziristan. Militants declared ceasefire for Tableeghi
gathering.
On 4th May, three levies men and a civilian were killed in blast at a
check post near border in Bajaur Agency. Huge Tableeghi gathering
concluded in Miranshah. Ten-day ceasefire was still holding. Gunmen
killed, former Taliban leader Mullah Samad Barakzai in Quetta. He
was supporting Karzai after distancing himself from Taliban.

128

Pakistan, reinvigorated by Bush, agreed to hold joint exercises with

US and Afghan forces to combat terrorism. The agreement was reached in
tripartite meeting held at Rawalpindi on 19th April. Sherpao said the US
would help in capacity-building of levies force as well as in training the
force personnel which would be raised in North and South Waziristan. Next
day, Crocker discussed development in FATA with NWFP Governor. About
a week later, newly recruited Spanta joined the chorus of Pakistan must do
more. Musharraf renewed his pledge to fight terror.
On 29th April, correspondents of foreign press were flown to
Miranshah and were proudly informed that 324 terrorists, including 41
aliens, were killed in 39 operations since June 2005. Only a day earlier
Musharraf had told the Guardian that he was not fighting terror for the US.
He termed the US air strikes inside Pakistan as infringement of sovereignty.
He did not say that he has been helplessness in stopping that, however, he
admitted that his popularity has gone down; but my country needs me.
Pakistan opened airspace to Dutch peacekeepers in Afghanistan on
2 May. With the expansion of NATO mission, they have become part of the
occupation force, but Islamabad preferred to call them peacekeepers. The
same day, Pak-US-Afghan anti-terror drills began. Pakistan again asked
Kabul to fence and mine its side of border to stop infiltration.
nd

On 3rd May, Abizaid arrived in Islamabad to get progress report on

war on terror. Three days later, Henry Compton, State Department
coordinator for counter-terrorism alleged that most al-Qaeda and Taliban
leaders are in Pakistan and Pakistan is not doing enough
Meanwhile, Altaf Bhai demanded army pullout from tribal area.
Home Minister of Baluchistan claimed that the provincial government had
proof of terrorism by Afghan nationals and asked the federal government
to lodge a protest with Kabul. He also demanded early repatriation of
Afghan refugees.
Deployment of fresh troops in South Waziristan was reported on 28 th
April. Next day, al-Zwahiri sent message to Pakistanis: I call on the people
of Pakistan to work to remove this traitor (Musharraf) from powerand I
call on every officer and soldier in the Pakistani army to disobey their
commanders orders to kill Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
During the period, analysts focused on Indian game plan for
destabilizing Pakistan by actively involving in tribal areas through
Afghanistan for whose peace sons of Pakistan has been and continue

129

shedding their blood. Asif Haroon wrote, we have known of RAW and the
Afghan intelligence involvement in Baluchistan and FATA for quite some
time but did not expose them because of our policy of appeasement and for
fear of annoying our neighbours. Karzai upped the ante when during his last
trip to Pakistan he furnished a list of wanted terrorists It was a calculated
move to put us on the defensive so that we are unable to complain to Bush
about the activities of RAW from Afghan soil. The visitor was presented
with conclusive evidence of RAW and Afghan intelligences shady activities.
It had little effect on him.
All our high hopes were dashed when Bushs visit turned into a nonevent. The ungrateful Bush carried only a one-point agenda of pressing
Musharraf to keep fighting terrorists without any letup. He appeared to be
on an on-the-spot assessment trip to know the battle worthiness of the man
chosen for the assigned task Our complaint to Gen Abizaid about Kabuls
conspiracies fell on deaf ears. After all, how could Karzai have indulged in
anti-Pakistan activities without a wink from his mentor?
The US legislation of March 15 is another reminder of punitive
action in case we continue to do business with Iran. To put more pressure,
the US State Department issued a slanderous report accusing Pakistan of
violating human rights. The US has done nothing to address the root
causes of terrorism in response to the two-pronged strategy proposed by
Musharraf, nor is there any desire to do so in the future. As such, we are
working on a single prong to fight the US war on terror, which is selfdefeating.
In our bid to project a soft image of Pakistan, we are fast losing our
bearing. Our exuberance to please the US and India by way of fighting
religious extremism has given rise to terrorism. Unmindful of the
implications of the Indo-US strategic relationship and the coldness of Bush
on Pakistans security
In a subsequent article, he added, it was alleged that Pakistans tribal
belt, particularly South Waziristan was infested with foreign elements that
were carrying out attacks in Afghanistan. A stage came when Pakistan was
clearly told that if it failed to take effective measures against them, US
troops would be forced to carryout hot pursuit operations across the border.
This was a ploy and part of the game plan to make the area turbulent
and make us turn our guns inward. In fact, throughout the war on terror our
guns have been pointing inward.

130

Overnight implementation of the new policy dictated by the US to

deal with the heroes of yesteryear as terrorists, rather than doing it steadily,
was imprudent The army expanded its operations to North Waziristan,
again on the prompting of the Americans. North Waziristan is still in flames
where the Mahsuds and Waziris who did not see eye to eye with each other
have joined hands.
Bajaur Agency is also restive because of the Predator attack on
Damadola and so is Kurram Agency where Shia-Sunni tensions are still
high. While Darra is restive, Mohmand Agency and Bajaur Agency, which
are in the grip of religious fervor, are likely to get disturbed as a
consequence to the Afghan-US operation in Kunar province. Over 150 progovernment and pro-US elements have been gunned down and
Talibanization is on the rise.
Having succeeded in drawing our more than corps size force towards
the western border, the Indo-Afghan intelligence has stepped up
subversive activities to create bad blood between the tribesmen and the
army. Nineteen training centres are in operation in Afghanistan where Indian
commandoes are imparting training to Afghans as well as dissidents from
Baluchistan and tribal belt. Cash and huge caches of munitions are pouring
in to keep the two areas turbulent. The assured external support together
with the promise of reward money has emboldened the local militants to
intensify their activities. Twenty-one Indian information centres in
Afghanistan are busy spreading poisonous propaganda against Pakistan
under the cover of promoting democracy and education.
All these actions are taking place in full swing under the nose of
the US military and CIA in Afghanistan. To pretend that they are being
hoodwinked is sheer deceitfulness. Having destabilized our tribal belt,
efforts are now in hand to spread the instability to settled areas in the NWFP.
In this regard, the recent threat by the US that it would undertake strikes
against the so-called terrorists hiding in settled areas in the Frontier is
ominous.
Now, that it has become clear that our so-called friends are playing
a double game and hatching conspiracies to destabilize us by constantly
pressing us to do more, we should review our policy of calling our own
people terrorists and unwisely creating so many enemies. We should give up
the witch-hunt against the so-called terrorists since it is always the innocent
people that suffer in the cross-fire.

131

Azam Khalil said, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has embarked on

a perilous journey of preaching tolerance but practicing treachery. He is
playing a dirty role by acting as a puppet for India under the shadows of the
American occupying forces in his country The Indians are planning to
extend their influence in every sphere of Afghanistan and to achieve this
purpose they are deeply involved in training and infiltrating Afghanistans
police and diplomatic corps.
Karzai, who was caught on the wrong foot by Pakistan when it was
established that he had allowed training camps run by the Indian
security agencies to destabilize the law and order in Baluchistan and
Waziristan may now come under renewed international scrutiny after the
discovery of Maoist camps in Afghanistan. Karzais government and the
Indian agencies are the main suppliers of arms and ammunition to the
insurgents in Nepal.
The analyst wrongly assumed that international community he
referred to was not aware of this. It has been done with explicit desire of that
pretending pious community. He added, Mr Karzai must remember that his
country will be the ultimate loser in this dangerous game once the
strategic and economic interests of the United States shift elsewhere.
There are reports about the Afghan president planning to lease the
airport at Jalalabad to the Indian air force for training of Afghanistans nonexistent air wing. It is very dangerous move that will be considered an
extremely hostile act by Pakistanis Already the Indians are funding two
dams in Afghanistan that would deprive Pakistan of its legitimate share of
water The Indian agencies have entrenched in various parts of
Afghanistan under a variety of guises. They are purchasing influence by the
day, a method approved by the Americans.
All this has increased the pressure on Pakistan because the Americans
have decided to create a favourable atmosphere for the Indians. The bug of
China phobia is most likely to benefit the Indian government The analyst
went on to suggest that Pakistan should try to counter this pressure by
enhancing ties with Nepal and Bangladesh. Pakistan should plead the case
of Naxalites and freedom fighters of Mizoram, and may raise its voice for
Sikhs who have been demanding autonomy. This is big ask from those
seeking soft image and engaged in crushing freedom movement in IHK and
Pushtoons resisting occupation of their country.
Nosheen Saeed suggested; at this juncture when global scenario is
changing rapidly and the regional developments are extremely worrisome; a
132

spirit of integration and patriotism should be prevailing amongst Pakistanis,

to counter the convergence of interests working among the US, India and
Afghanistan in cornering Pakistan on the issue of cross-border terrorism.
Blames emanate like a chorus from the trio. By exploiting our
weaknesses they have simultaneously unleashed a malicious campaign to
destabilize Pakistan.
The elements who wish to destabilize the government during such
sensitive times must read what the Afghan state-run newspaper wrote
last month, Pakistans political parties are trying to overthrow Musharrafs
despotic government At the same time, the freedom struggle by the
Baluch is becoming stronger by the day and its poised to spread to
Pushtunkhwa (NWFP), Sindh and Kashmir and assume the nature of a
national movement against Punjabi dominance.
Obviously, Karzais anti-Pakistan activities and the growing intensity
of his attacks have the endorsement of the US and India. Karzais domestic
compulsions on many fronts, his political failure and isolation are making
him lose his authority; increasing tensions with Pakistan at this stage could
be a useful diversion.
S Rahman expressed his concern. It is really shocking to note a news
item coming from Waziristan from the public quarters directly experiencing
the armed conflagration prevailing in the region. According to the report, the
people fighting the security forces are actively backed by trained foreign
saboteurs including Indians. Some people even say that foreign saboteurs
are actively engaged in fighting Pak security personnel.
Neither the government nor other quarters concerned have given
publicity to this act. One, however, wishes the news item to be untrue, but a
good number of Waziristan people insist that their first hand information
about foreign saboteurs fighting Pakistani troops in that area is true.
Taking cognizance of the ground realities in the backdrop of this vital
information, the logical conclusion drawn is that the authorities, especially
the agencies and security setups, are fighting many faces of an enemy both
hidden and visible, on the basis of concrete realities and not on the basis of
hypothetical themes and plans The government must deal with the ill
wishers launching attacks with impunity, with an iron hand. At the same
time it should continue with its plan to economically and politically
strengthen the masses of the disturbed areas.
Praful Bidwai advised Pakistan to accept India-related emerging
realities. The beheading of Indian engineer Kasula Suryanarayana by the
133

Taliban in Afghanistan, marks a new low in the already precarious situation

of the country. It is a pointer to the success that the Taliban have had in
regrouping in several of Afghanistans provinces, especially in Kandahar,
Zabul, Kunar, Uruzgan, Paktika, Paktia and Helmand not to speak of the
tribal agency areas in Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.
It is noteworthy that Suryanarayana was killed despite Karzais
recent invitation to the Taliban to further the process of political
reconciliation by joining and cooperating with his government.
Surayanarayanas killing is a sign of greater recalcitrance and selfconfidence on the part of the Taliban.
It nevertheless stands to reason that hardliners in secret agencies
would collude with all forces, which seek to scare Indian civilians away
from Afghanistan. They dont regard Indias historic ties with Afghanistan as
real or legitimate Many hardliners probably believe like many in
Pakistans civilian establishment do too that India is messing around or
making trouble in a country that lies in the Pakistani sphere of influence
and gives it the strategic depth it otherwise lacks.
Pakistan, in particular, must reconcile its Afghanistan and India
policies and abide scrupulously by its commitment not to support any
militant separatist and terrorist groups. He spoke on behalf of New Delhi
and Kabul simultaneously.
Masooda Bano focused on Musharrafs remarks in an interview
to the Guardian. Is the situation in Waziristan in any terms better than what
it was before the military operations? The answer is clearly no. All along
people familiar with the area have argued in favour of the use of intelligence
and other means to gradually cleanse the system of foreign extremists.
However, the government still pursues military operations and continues to
defend them despite the fact that General Musharraf himself is
acknowledging a growing Talibanization in the area.
Above all, throughout the interview General Musharrafs main
attempt was to show that he is not at the beck and call of the US
government If these operations are not at the behest of the US then why
has so many attacks been planned just before or after the arrival of a high
ranking US officials? The question is that if the government is free to set its
own priorities then why is it not investing even half of those resources to
track and monitor the militant groups involved in domestic sectarian
violence? Why is no serious investigation carried out after a major incidence
of religious violence in the mainland the recent one being in Karachi?
134

Kamran Shafi noted the teeth shown in the interview. The teeth
growing ineffectually at this late stage is not going to help the government.
Nobody, let alone our tight buddies, is/are going to be taken in by this
show of fake bravado. Not when General Musharraf himself receives
junior-level officials of the American government; even assistant secretaries
of state and defence (joint secretaries according to our system), indeed
anyone whose travel itinerary originates from Washington Bahadur; not
when he Summits with General Abizaid (nothing more than a corps
commander).
As said often before, there is only one way out for this country,
indeed for any country, to show that it is an entity that must be taken
seriously. And that is for people in authority to behave and act in an
appropriate manner, for they represent the country and ALL its people, not
just themselves and their own narrow interests.
Yusufzai dwelled on the interview. Musharraf claimed that the war
against al-Qaeda had almost been won in Waziristan. As if contradicting
himself, he then observed that Talibanization had gained influence in the
same border region and it was now spilling over into settled areas.
The pressures from the domestic opposition seeking real, militaryless democracy and the US wanting Pakistan to do more in Americas war on
terror leave him little choice to take independent decisions and avoid
becoming subjective in his remarks and analysis. Musharraf actually meant
that please dont embarrass me by asking to do more on al-Qaeda which has
been defeated, but I am still relevant because Taliban threat still exists.
One would have to pinpoint that al-Qaeda may have suffered
physical and infrastructural losses in terms of the killing and capture of its
operatives and the seizure of its sanctuaries in Waziristan and elsewhere but
there is no evidence to suggest that the ideology it professes too has
registered a decline. How can that happen when the US continues to
provide oxygen to al-Qaeda through its aggressive policies ranging from
the reckless invasion of Iraq and bombing of innocent civilians in
Afghanistan to the killing of villagers in Pakistani tribal areas such as
Bajaur, abuse of prisoners of war and blatant interference in the affairs of
almost every country in the world?
Rather, it would be safe to conclude that al-Qaeda has experienced
setbacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it has gained elsewhere in the
Islamic World, particularly in Iraq and other Arab countries. Even in
Pakistan it has managed to survive as an ideology.
135

The president appeared to be on target when he spoke about the

Taliban influence in North Waziristan and South Waziristan. How else one
would explain the intriguing calm that recently descended on both parts of
Waziristan following a declaration of ceasefire by Islamic militants, who like
being referred to as Taliban or Mujahideen?
The halt in hostilities, even if temporary, provided a glimpse of the
militants clout in the tribal borderlands The tribesmen and their guests
from the Tableeghi Jamaat enjoyed relative peace and the credit for ensuring
this went to the Pakistani Taliban. In military language it meant that
initiative rests with Taliban.
A day before the ceasefire came into effect, the body of a prominent
pro-government tribal elder and cleric Maulana Jannat Mir was found in a
village near Mirali town One by one tribal elders, clerics, social workers
and others perceived to be pro-government and named on the list are being
eliminated. The government and the thousands of Pakistan Army troops
deployed in the area are helpless to protect those who risked their lives
to support the military operations.
As for Talibanization of Waziristan and its spillover effect in the
neighbouring settled districts, there are two aspects to it. One is the political
aspect, which indeed is growing as more tribesmen are radicalized in view
of the ongoing military operations, unemployment, sense of alienation,
and slow pace of development projects being executed there. The sidelining
of the normally dominant political administration after the arrival of the
military in the area has also allowed the militants to fill the vacuum.
The other aspect is the way of life of the tribes-people, who are
overwhelmingly conservative and religious. Growing beards, observing
purdah, deciding dispute through jirgas under riwaj (customs) and Shariah,
and carry arms is part of the tribal culture and by no stretch of
imagination could be termed Talibanization.
More worrying perhaps is the attempt by militants to issue decrees
challenging the countrys laws in settled districts and in Frontier regions,
such as Jandola that borders South Waziristan These militants cleverly try
to stamp out drugs and certain social evils to win a level of popularity. The
general public starts believing that the militants are capable of doing
something that the government, police and courts fail to do despite getting
paid for it.

136

Prejudices of the Crusaders remained in place. Controversy about

Pakistans nuclear programme was kept alive. On 17th April, Pakistan
denied media report that US personnel were guarding its nuclear facilities,
but accepted that two countries have exchanged their experiences in this
context.
On 2nd May, Foreign Office said that with the release of Dr Farooq,
last of the 11 persons detained, the probe in Dr Khan was finally over. We
have conducted thorough investigations in this affair. We have shared our
information with the International Atomic Energy Agency and other
countries, including the United States. Meanwhile, Merkel said IndoGerman nuclear deal was possible, but US Senate criticized nuclear deal;
India declined to accept amendments.
US offered alternative to subvert IPI gas project. US Energy
Secretary, Bodman when asked for his reaction to a $ 7 billion gas pipeline
deal among Iran, Pakistan and India, said: Doing business with Iran, it
seems to me, at a certain level encourages its nuclear ambitions. This pearl
of wisdom could also mean that doing business with US encourages
America to continue its Crusades against followers of Islam.
Pakistan for a change, genuinely or pretendingly, showed some guts
on this project. Prime Minister said Pakistan still plans to import gas from
Iran. Musharraf discussed gas pipeline project with Nejad and told Chinese
delegation that Pakistan was not under pressure on the gas pipeline project.
Pakistan and Iran decided to go ahead on gas pipeline project even if India
does not join by 30th May. Both countries agreed on gas pricing principles.
Pakistan also rejected use of force against Iran over nuclear issue.
The crusaders showed no sign of recovery from Paki-phobia. On 21st
April, Syed Haris Ahmed, 21-year-old Pakistani was indicted in terror case
in Georgia. Five days later, a Pakistan-born American was found guilty by a
California court of undergoing al-Qaeda training just hours after a mistrial
was declared in his fathers trial in the same case. Later, a woman juror in
the trial alleged that she was intimidated by the head of the jury to convict
the man.
US placed Jamaat al-Dawat and Idara-e-Khidmat-e-Khalq on a list of
terrorist organizations. Hafiz Mohammad Saeed criticized the decision and
for a change Pakistan ruled out action against 2 charities accused of working
as fronts for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the leading freedom fighters group in IHK.

137

Amir Cheema, who was arrested in Berlin for attacking a German

newspaper editor for printing blasphemous caricatures some three months
ago, was found dead in his cell. German authorities claimed that Amir
committed suicide. Opposition legislators moved a motion over the killing,
but Speaker prorogued the session before the issue could be debated.
Cribbing against US-India nuclear deal continued. Ikram Sehgal
wrote, a general perception also exists in Pakistan that India has been
rewarded for its years of anti-US policies, as usual Pakistan being shunted
aside for being loyal to the US whenever US faces a crisis in the region.
This reminds someones saying, quoted in one of the previous articles, that it
is better to be the enemy of America than to be a friend. With the tension
rising over Irans nuclear programme, the West again started talking
against Pakistan, particularly Dr Khan.
Pakistan was constrained to declare that Dr Khans chapter was
closed. The News read in between the lines. Without the spokeswoman
saying it, this was the latest declaration by Islamabad that it is no longer
prepared to play junior partner to Washington.
Kamran Shafi observed that there was no question of any partnership.
The investigation about our self-confessed nuclear proliferation is
nowhere near over on a television programmeBBC correspondent was
commenting on a Pakistan Foreign Office statement that said the Dr AQ
Khan case had been closed and that there would be no further investigation
into the matter. He said that such a statement by the Pakistani Foreign Office
was an attempt to sweep things under the rug He said that Khan supplied
nuclear material and designs to Iran and the US wanted access to Dr Khan
because only he could explain the history and purposes of Irans nuclear
programme.
That unless the American government has not milked our own
foolishness dry, and to the extent that serves its purposes (and what greater
purpose than humbling Iran, my friends?) we will continue to be in the
firing line. Indeed, that everything points to the time that we ourselves will
be fired at, by our very own tight buddy.
Really, the way in which the so-called leadership of the Land of the
Pure handled the AQ Khan matter deserves to enter history books as just the
wrong way to go about these things. Let me here make a wagerDr
Khan/anyone the Americans want to interview, will be interviewed.
The row over Irans nuclear issue, once again brought Pakistan in the
spotlight. The News wrote, Pakistan, once again figures very
138

prominently in the equation amid speculation that the Americans could

resort to using Pakistani territory in a campaign against Iran. Islamabad has
been steadfastly maintaining its neutral position on the issue; but maybe, the
time demands a more active Pakistani role in defusing the Iran crisis.
In another editorial the daily newspaper talked about IPI gas pipeline
project. Washington has indicated to Islamabad its intentions that it will
furnish funding and security guarantees for a three-billion dollar
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline a project that was given
up towards the mid-nineties amid insurgence of Taliban and resulting
hostilities in Afghanistan. However, for such an arrangement to materialize
TAP will only be possible when Pakistan calls off its plans to purchase piped
gas from Iran.
Pakistan needs to be careful in making its choices. It cannot afford
to lose its friendship with Iran that has endured several crises. It also cannot
keep on fighting American wars forever especially when it is left all alone to
deal with the debris.

PROXY CRUSADERS
The worth of ongoing composite dialogue was amply reflected by
three events during the period. On 20th April, Indian army chief said, no
immediate pullout from Siachen. Next day, it was reported that India would
deploy MiG-29 fleet in Tajikistan at its first overseas base which was near
completion. On 27th April, India once again rejected Pakistans proposal to
de-militarize Kashmir and turned down an offer for no-war pact.
Yet, the confidence building process moved on. On 24th April,
Bollywood top stars arrived in Lahore on the occasion of release of Indian
film Taj Mahal after Mughal-e-Azam. Two days later, Minister for Culture,
at premiere of Taj Mahal, said remarkable progress has been made in PakIndia relations. The same day the government allowed import of cement and
clinker from India by train, road and sea.
Indian court freed 45 Pakistanis on 28th April, who had completed
their sentences. The same day, Indian naval chief said that Pakistan and India
enjoy excellent bilateral relations and Indian Navy is ready to undertake
joint exercise with its counterpart in Pakistan. Islamabad was also ready, but
preferred to wait for resolution of Kashmir dispute.
The habit negative to confidence building could not be resisted by
either side. On 18th April, Indian home secretary said, it is unfortunate, but
139

it is true, that across the border the camps are flourishing. But we are also
ready to take that challenge and meet them effectively as we have done in
the last few years.
As verdict of neutral expert on Baglihar Dam was awaited, it was
reported that India has planned seven more dams on River Chenab. On 26 th
April, two-day talks on nuclear confidence building measures ended in
Islamabad without resolving the differences. Three days later, Pakistan testfired 2,500-kilometer range Shaheen-II surface-to-surface missile.
Death toll in Gujarat riots over demolition of a Muslim shrine/mosque
rose to five by 2nd May. Next day Indian Army and Air Force rehearsed
slicing Pakistan in half in the event of actual war. India informed Pakistan
through a letter that design of Kishanganga Dam has been revised. The same
day, Pakistan rejected Kargil-Skardu bus service proposal.
On 4th May, Indian Army Chief admitted that army officers stage fake
encounters in which innocent civilians are killed. Following incidents of
state terrorism and retaliatory actions by the freedom fighters were reported
during the period:
A senior politician was wounded and his guard killed by suspected
militants on 17th April. Three days later, police held two suspected
militants.
On 21st April, a policeman and three civilians were killed in separate
attacks by fighters in IHK. Police arrested two suspected militants.
One person was killed and 36 wounded in violence during polls in
IHK on 24th April. Gilani and Shabbir remained under house arrest.
Next day six people were killed and 28 wounded in clashes.
On 1st May, suspected militants attacked two Hindu villages in Doda
and killed 24 people on the eve of Singhs talks with Kashmiri
leaders. Nine dead bodies of Hindu herdsmen were found in
Udhampur district. Hizb blamed Indian agencies for carnage. Singh
and Mirwaiz condemned attack.
Next day, Indian troops launched hunt for killers of Hindus. Military
blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba for the massacre. Gilani and JKLF
condemned the killings. Indian troops martyred 52 Kashmiris in April.
Three Indian soldiers and four rebels were killed in three clashes on
3rd May. Next day, two persons were killed and eight wounded in a

140

bomb blast in Badgam district. On 6 th May, the protesters ran riot on

second day of protests over prostitution issue.
Gilani urged Kashmiris to boycott polls. On 27th April, Chief
Minister, Azad won a seat in elections. Mirwaiz termed polls as irrelevant.
Asiya Andrabi blamed the State for patronizing prostitution. Chief Minister
urged Kashmiri clerics to issue Fatwa against the killings in Kashmir
following the clerics of Hyderabad who issued a decree against Taliban after
killing of Indian engineer in Afghanistan. On 3rd May, Indian Prime Minister
and APHC leaders held frank talks in New Delhi. APHC leaders agreed with
Manmohan to establish a system to discuss solutions to Kashmir dispute.
Two days later, Mirwaiz asked militants to join peace talks with New Delhi.
In view of the demonstrated Indian intentions, Asif Haroon drew the
attention of the rulers toward primary task of the armed forces. He was
concerned over the extent of armys commitments in war on terror,
insurgency in Baluchistan, maintenance of law and order, and relief and
rehabilitation works in earthquake-hit areas. In his view such large scale
commitments for indefinite period have tiring effect on troops which
could adversely affect the ability to perform the primary task. The emerging
geo-political scenario demands to pay more attention to the primary task.
He then made prudent suggestions. While endearing to forge a longterm strategic partnership with China and Iran, we should upgrade our
defensive capability and take steps to keep our nuclear deterrence potent.
Internally, the bottlenecks that obstruct national integration must be
identified for removal and full-scale reconciliation among the divides that
keep us polarized should be achieved. The guns of hate and antagonism
must not point towards our own people.
Our publicity department should come out of its defensive and
reactive mode, and work upon a proper strategy to counter the IndoAfghan-Western propaganda campaign. Presently it is entirely geared
towards scoring points against the opposition parties and on terrorism. We
need to revive our warrior spirit without which nations die.
The revival of warrior spirit would be quite difficult, if not
impossible, in view of the discard of Jihad for soft image and enlightened
moderation, because of which rulers in Pakistan have abandoned the military
option, allowing India to crush the Kashmiri freedom fighters. Pakistan has
been forced onto back foot even on opening of LoC or rendering it
ineffective, as was evident from its refusal to open Kargil-Skardu bus
service.
141

POLITICAL PROCESS
Bush visit had a significant impact on political canvas of Pakistan. His
mention of the democracy, though he was not sincere about it, resulted in
increased political activity. Nawaz-Benazir contact in London
dominated the political stage. Sherry claimed that the government was in
panic over expected Nawaz-Benazir meeting. PML-N will uproot
dictatorship, said Nawaz.
On 24th April, the two exiled two-time prime ministers met in London.
Both agreed to jointly work for the restoration of 1973 Constitution; ruled
out any deal with government; demanded free elections; and urged release of
political prisoners. Shahbaz hoped an early approval of Charter of
Democracy. CEC said he has no powers about return of Benazir and Nawaz.
Meanwhile, PPP rejected electoral alliance with MMA. Benazir
couldnt afford that because she earnestly desired to win the all-important
support of the Crusaders. The party vowed to boycott polls sans Benazir and
Nawaz. Mushahid said there was no foreign pressure for Benazir and Nawaz
return. On 1st May, Jatoi and Mazari called on Nawaz.
MMA asked Musharraf to honour his commitment, but he was too
busy in honouring his commitments to the Crusades. On 26 th April, Jamaat
sacked ten senior office-bearers in NWFP. Membership of Qazis son,
provincial deputy chief and MNAs was suspended for violating party
discipline. Tariq Butt commended JI for setting up precedent of ruthless
internal accountability. On 2nd May, Jamaat expelled two MPAs on charges
of horse-trading during Senate elections. By standards of Pakistani politics,
these mullas are undoubtedly fundamentalist, extremist and intolerant.
Patriots feared losing the platform that they had carved for extracting
maximum benefits in a coalition government. PML-Q enticed some of them
to join Kings party; the proposed merger was rejected. Undisclosed number
of Patriots, however, agreed to the merger and on 28 th April it was reported
that two more Patriots would join PML-Q soon.
PML-Q made the move to preserve its political clout. On 25 th April,
Musharraf-Aziz-Shujaat trio reshuffled the cabinet with eye on polls.
Rashids show-biz stint ended as he was told to wear Lalkurti. About a week
later, Musharraf said the era of dissolution of assemblies was over.
Opposition said completion of tenure was not the real issue. Musharraf ruled

142

out snap polls and directed PML-Q leaders of Punjab to follow Shujaat. On
6th May, PML-Q closed the door for dialogue with Nawaz or Benazir.

PPP/PML-N deal invited the maximum attention of media and

analysts. The News wrote, they appear to be making an unattractive
beginning. Their rejection of reconciliation with the government smacks of
confrontation Now that they have buried the hatchet, even if for the time
being, the two parties would have done well not to reject a working
arrangement with the government, Heaven knows we cant afford any
more confrontation not even the PPP and PML-N.
Shafqat Mahmood opined, these leaders have the potential to
mobilize the people and it is interesting that in the London meeting, they
spent little time targeting Pervez Musharraf and talked more about the
revival of the 1973 Constitution rid of anti-democratic amendments. It is
their strong commitment to civilian supremacy that stands out. It is good
that this is likely to be reduced into writing in the form of a Charter for
Democracy because what they hope to achieve must be clearly stated. It
becomes a kind of manifesto and also validates their commitment.
Mir Jamilur Rahman said, it is a matter of principle or fear of the
unknown that is forcing the hands of the government to deny an even
playing field for the elections? Perhaps it is a matter of survival. However,
there is no cause for panic if BB and NS were to return to Pakistan
unhindered. The PML-Q is the largest party in the parliament and Punjab
and enjoys considerable support in other provinces, too.
Adnan Adil observed, the fact that it took Benazir and Nawaz nearly
seven years to meet publicly means that a lot of effort must have gone into
making this meeting happen. And when they finally met, Nawaz and Benazir
could not agree even in principle to return home together Both
Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto announced that they would not strike any
deal with the Musharraf regime. Still, it is an open secret that they remain in
contact with the establishments emissaries.
Hopes are pinned on a joint opposition movement in which the six
parties religious alliance, the MMA, would join hands with the PPP-PMLN-led ARD. Nawaz Sharif has announced his party would hold an All Parties
Conference in July to deliberate on the joint strategy of the opposition
parties.
Gibran Peshimam said, as far as the meetings at Park Lane
apartments in London go, they represent nothing of particular poignancy.

143

Banal expressions, such as the Charter of Democracy being drawn out by

the two exiled leaders, are just euphemisms to aggrandize their return to
politics a transitory phase of cooperation that will undoubtedly lead to a
commencement of cut-throat rivalry upon the conclusion of their sabbatical
from politics.
Sana Farooq from Rawalpindi apprehended, the time is ripe once
again for these so-called democrats to throw dust in the eyes of common
Pakistani and plan another round of state robbery in the garb of
democracy. After all why not, for they see once again a lucrative target in
the form of a wealthy and prosperous Pakistan with its booming economy,
overflowing banks, a skyrocketing stock exchange, reserves of almost $ 13
billion, changing life styles and above all a nation whose confidence and
pride has been restored.
Dr Farrukh Saleem, too, had no high hopes. Every chance the Queen
or Sharifov got they squandered by choking the only other democratic force
around encouraging non-democratic forces and failing to put in place an
independent judiciary (that couldve saved them in times of trouble). In
essence, the Queen and Sharifov have been each others worst enemies.
With but preferably without the Queen in town and the electoral
field will be made to tilt in Qs favour and the loaded electoral dice will be
made to land in Qs lap. The rulers, however, would love to have one
genuine political force on their side; play one democratic force against the
other. Sharifovs insist they are not in the queue. Is the Queen? The rulers
would love an explicit split between the Queen and Sharifov.
Mir Jamilur Rahman had no sympathy for Patriots. The PPP
(Patriots) presents a most pathetic picture. It only exists in the parliament
and nowhere else. Its 18 MNAs and three Senators were elected on the PPP
ticket, but they were lured to join the PML as coalition partners. They were
amply rewarded for deserting their party. As elections get closer, some of its
MNAs have deserted to join the PML. Last Wednesday, its leaders called on
President Musharraf and asked him to stop the PML from accepting the PPP
(P) deserters in its fold. How ironic! The PPP (P) is getting a taste of its
own medicine. It should not forget that its entire body is composed of
deserters.
About Afgans suggestion that PPP (P) should merge with the PML,
he wrote, as a hardened politician, he knows that PPP (P) would not be
able to maintain its numerical strength in the parliament as it enjoys
today. The seat adjustment would hardly work
144

He opined that the MMA will remain intact. The ARD will provide
it an opening to arrange seat adjustments with other ARD members. The
ARD members will help each other to defeat the PML candidates The
MQM is above all such squabbling. It neither needs electoral alliances nor
government patronage nor rigging to win elections. It is highly disciplined
than even the MMA whose claim to piety was brutally exposed in the recent
Senate elections.
Fasihur Rehman was of the view that despite the ups and downs in its
relationship with the military regime, Benazir Bhuttos Pakistan People
Party is still in the run as a possible ally for Musharraf Any agreement
between Musharraf and the PPP will be at the cost of the MQM which
currently enjoys a major share of power in the Sindh government. The PPP
and MQM are long time rivals in the province of Sindh.

PML-Q made its first move for the next years elections by
reshuffling and expanding the Cabinet. The News wrote, in the present
case, however, the new inductions and the reshuffle of portfolios have
been inevitably linked to the governments plans to hold a general
election next year. It is very sensitive task since the cabinet-makers have to
ensure the alterations do not disturb the balance of a government which is
made of so many coalition partners.
Rahimullah Yusufzai said, the more the merrier seems to be the
motto of our president, or should we say the prime minister because he is
supposed to head the government, in view of the ever-growing size of the
cabinet. They arent deterred by the size of the cabinet even if it negates
their oft-repeated promise to end wasteful expenditure and introduce good
governance. Like the law of necessity that our superior courts use to justify
repeated military takeovers, political compulsions come handy as the
reason for having large cabinets in the present dispensation.
Khusro Mumtaz foresaw continuity of Musharraf legacy. The
civilian government exists purely to provide a legitimizing cover to the
Generals rule. He, his corps commanders, and his other fellow officers in
the armed services are the people who really run the show. The prime
ministers ever-expanding cabinet is purely a way of handing out favours
to hold together an increasingly unwieldy coalition that remains beholden to
the real powers-that-be. The competence and performance or lack of the
same of the ministers is hardly the issue.

145

Musharraf made no secret of it and told PML-Q to set internal matters

right. The News wrote, all the bickering factions that have come together
under the PML-Q umbrella were given a timely wakeup call by President
Pervez Musharraf Chaudhry Shujaat, who heads this rather cumbersome
and fractious League, has also been told to consult all sections of opinion
within the party and to refrain from unilaterally nominating policy or
persons for party posts. The canny Chaudhry from Gujrat, meanwhile, has
been the butt of strong criticism over his style of leadership, not only from
within the party but also from the ranks of government allies
Given this backdrop, President Musharrafs call for an end to the
internal squabbling within the PML is extremely timely. With the General
admitting in a recent interview that the governments popularity has fallen,
the Muslim League should have its work cut out for it.
Mir Jamilur Rahman suggested, if the PML-Q wants to win the
elections without resorting to pre- or post-election rigging, then it should
listen to Pir Pagara and elect Gen Pervez Musharraf as its president. He
has become an experienced campaigner and a national leader in his own
right. He is the originator of the PML-Q and without his support and
patronage the party would collapse like a house of cards.
Continuity of Musharraf automatically brings in US factor, which
according to Nasim Zehra is a misread factor. Washington has interests and
influence in Pakistan and it will promote its own national interests. In terms
of priorities, democracy is not major interest. This concern is incidental to
the promotion of its other policy interests. For now General Musharraf is
the man Washington will bet on.
Adnan Adil mentioned another aspect of this factor. Benazir and
Nawaz have met when it is being felt that the United States wants President
Musharraf to increase space for the two leaders in the national politics to
contain religious parties. Given this it would be illogical to expect that they
would join hands with the MMA, and vice versa.
Dr Farrukh Saleem singled out PPP in this context. The Queen has
long been putting all her eggs in the American basket. The great American
democracy, on the other hand, is somehow convinced that it must have
undemocratic allies. Democratic forces cannot and should not count
on Uncle Sams helpPresident Bush has been elected by American voters
to safeguard Americas geo-strategic interests, democracy or dictatorship is
eveyones own business.

146

Whosoever be the next, Masooda Bano did not envy him or her. The
rising incidences of religious violence, the tensions in the tribal belts, the
operations in Baluchistan, the rising prices, and growing economic pressure
on the masses will be the gifts of the current government to the next
elected government.
Muhammad Badar Alam discussed the causes of political parties
failure to deliver. For Mushahid Hussainpolitical parties have
stopped being issue-oriented. Their focus is on individuals, not ideologies,
ideals and issues. But for Aitzaz Ahsan the blame lies with the army-led
state apparatus which is impervious and unresponsive to peoples
aspirations... It has broken the will of the political cadre They have not
been allowed the space to function.
The structure of the state and the environment in which the political
parties operateforces political parties to play a game of survival, instead of
allowing them to sell their policies and leadership according to Dr
Mohammed Waseem. Their policies are discredited, their leaders are
incarcerated and their organizational structures are put under attack through
various means like horse-trading. The establishment continuously engages
in efforts to make or break them.
In his opinion, the essential factor in their plight is the military rule
which disrupts political activity every time it gets started and the
establishments desire to appoint and select leaders, leaving people with the
notion that their votes dont count at the end of the day when it comes to
deciding who should be ruling them The critics of the political parties
contend that these parties suffer a lack of credibility because even when they
came to power they failed to deliver for the people in the street. Hence their
inability to make people rise.
Aitizaz Ahsan has a contrasting take on history. Political parties may
have come into government, but they have never been allowed to come to
power since Bhutto was deposed in 1977. The real power has always
remained with the establishment a troika of president, civil-military
bureaucracy and the chief justice. Political parties have been kept outside the
system.
Dr Mohammad Waseem says its harsh to judge the political parties
on the basis of their performance. Parties everywhere fall short of their
promise when they come to power. This is nothing specific to Pakistan
Musharraf-led regime has consistently discredited political parties. This

147

negative propaganda has been very instrumental in alienating people from

the parties.
In Dr Waseems view the issue of de-politicization and the role of
political parties in it runs much deeper to be resolved by a piece of
legislation, no matter how relevant. The parties need to be brought to the
centre of activity. The system should be reformed in a way that it allows the
parties to sell their policies to the electorate. Unless that is done, he sees
little hope in the political parties re-energizing the polity by simply
reforming themselves.
Some learned people suggested changes in the system. Hasan Askree
wanted change in election for Senators; from indirect election to direct
election. Rahimullah Yusufzai desired changes in the constitution to enforce
accountability.
He said, in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai presented his 25member cabinet to the parliament for approval. Five proposed ministers
were rejected by the 249-strong parliament in a secret ballot telecast live by
local television. Every parliamentarian cast 25 votes, one for each minister,
and the results were announced in a live telecast. The ministers, some old
and others new, made speeches describing their achievements and future
plans for the ministry. The members of parliament, elected in general
elections held in September 2005, asked questions from ministers before
voting. Each and every minister was made accountable to Wolesi Jirga, or
National Assembly, and on television screens across the country.
In Pakistan, which is a much older democracy, the frequently delayed
reshuffle of the federal cabinet was a hush-hush affair. The parliament was
neither consulted nor empowered to reject or approve the proposed changes
in the cabinet. No minister was dropped or demoted. It meant there was no
accountability despite Prime Minister Shaukat Azizs past promises to
monitor the performance of members of his cabinet. Instead of sacking a
minister for inefficiency or rewarding another for good work, every former
member of cabinet was retained and more were added to appease factions
and lobbies seeking greater representation. The cabinets strength rose to a
record 79 and portfolios had to be parceled out to accommodate the
newcomers.
It would be useful to think of ways and means to make the cabinet
accountable to parliament. In a sense, it is answerable to the parliament but
changes are needed to empower lawmakers to approve and reject the
proposed cabinet members. Our lawmakers, or the powers that be, may not
148

want to learn from the Afghan experience because it may be embarrassing to

follow the example of those still learning the ropes of democracy.
One could even make a case for amending our much-amended
Constitution to let the parliament approve all members of the federal cabinet.
Likewise, provincial assemblies could be empowered to approve their
cabinets. The 1973 Constitution has until now been amended and disfigured
to serve the interest of individuals. Now is the time to amend it to serve the
interest of the people by empowering their elected representatives.
Dr Farrukh Saleem wrote, at this juncture, what Pakistan needs the
most is a multi-party, multi-candidate, genuinely competitive, free and
fair election. The one who gives Pakistan what Pakistan needs the most
shall not only protect his own future but will also be remembered in history
as the real savior.

HOME FRONT
Baluchistan continued suffering from militancy of some Baluchi
warlords. Following incidents of subversion by militants and actions taken
by law enforcing agencies were reported, despite the fact that Musharraf
claimed that the issue has been resolved:
On 18th April, Ghazan Marri, brother of Mir Balach Marri was
arrested in UAE and reportedly he would be handed over to Pakistan.
Militants fired 8 rockets on security forces posts in Dera Bugti and
Sui on 19th April. Next day, Levies man was injured in landmine blast
in Kahan area.
On 21st April, gas pipeline and railway track were damaged in Sibi
and Dera Bugti districts respectively.
Three persons were injured in bomb blast in Quetta on 23rd April.
Terrorists blew up gas pipeline in Dera Bugti area.
On 24th April, four landmines were seized in Sangsila and Chashma
areas of Dera Bugti. Two days later, Sibi-Harnai railway track was
blown up by terrorists.
Rail track was blown up near Naushki on 1 st May. Three rockets were
fired at Jandran post in Kohlu district. Two security forces personnel
received injuries in different incidents.

149

 On 2nd May, one person was killed in car bomb explosion in Sui.
Police claimed arrest of three BLA militants from Bolan district. Two
Indian nationals were arrested near Iran border.
Musharraf once again accused Baluch sardars of receiving money
from outside. Prime Minister sought pacification through monetary means as
he promised more funds for Baluchistan. Akbar Bugti did not like the moves
to undermine his authority in the area. He threatened Kalpars not to return to
their native town of Sui.
A message from Akbar Bugti being circulated in Baluchistan and
beyond explains the seriousness of the situation, noted Rahimullah
Yusufzai. Its title itself is threatening, as well as self explanatory. It is titled,
Message from Koh-i-Baluch by the Sipah Salar Nawab Akbar Bugti
fighting for the defence of Baluch cause, resources and identity. It refers to
the Pakistani state and government as enemy and takes pride in the fact that
the Baluch people are more active than the other smaller nationalities such
as the Sindhis, Seraikis and Pakhtuns while fighting for their rights and
protesting the unjust economic and political system in Pakistan.
Akbar Bugti describes the Baluch land as Baluch Watan and insists
that every hill in Makran, Chaghi, Bolan, Kahan, Kohlu and Dera Bugti has
become a trench offering protection to the Baluch fighters and creating fear
in the hearts of the enemy.
The enemy understands the language of force and, therefore, the
Baluch would have to battle it out to defend their 780-kilometres of coastline
and riches of gas, oil, gold and silver and copper. He is asking the Baluch to
embrace martyrdom instead of becoming a minority in their own land just
like the Red Indians. They are forewarned against the intrigues of fellow
Baluch with conduct similar to past sub-continental traitors like Mir Jaffar
and Mir Sadiq.
Akbar Bugti wants his Baluch people to seek inspiration from the
Iraqi Kurds, who braved Saddam Husseins chemical weapons and offered
immense sacrifices to win freedom, and Che Guevara, who sparked a
revolution even though he was all alone when he began his struggle.
The symbols highlighted in Akbar Bugtis message and its tough
language leaves little doubt in ones mind that he has finally embarked on
the path of armed confrontation with the state. It conveys the chilling
message that time for staging peaceful protests, holding negotiations and
sitting in parliamentary committees is a thing of the past.

150

Seen in this background President Musharrafs claim that the

Baluchistan issue has been resolved makes it obvious that he is no longer
interested in a negotiated political solution of the problem. It is another
matter that a military solution, even if it is achieved after much bloodshed,
would neither be durable nor in the long-term interest of Pakistan.
The troublemaking Baluch sardars, in the words of the government
functionaries, may be only three out of the whole lot, but it is also a fact that
Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri, Nawab Akbar Bugti and Sardar Attaullah
Mengal hold the key to bringing stability to Baluchistan.
Banning the BLA or blaming India and Afghanistan for our troubles
in Baluchistan is akin to tackling the fallout of the problem. Such measures
cannot contribute much by way of finding a durable solution of the festering
Baluchistan issue.
Farhatullah Babar agreed on this point. A great danger in banning a
shadowy outfit without firm knowledge is that it gives license to the
security forces to shoot at will in the name of sorting out the BLA. When
shadows elude them the frustrated agencies will tend to link genuine
nationalist political parties to the shadows. It is stumbling into a minefield.
Nothing worthwhile happened in the context of acquiring soft
image, except that women were offered commission in the army in some
departments and six MQM men involved in abduction and killing of a
soldier were set free by ATC. But, Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace (an
NGO funded by the Carnegie Endowment Fund) released its second annual
report of Failed State rankings in which Pakistan descended from 34 th last
year to 9th in 2006.
However, Rauf Klasras efforts kept bearing results. On 18th April FIA
said Swiss Embassy officials might have links to human smuggling. Next
day, FIA formally notified the Swiss Embassy that some of its unidentified
officials and diplomats might be involved in human trafficking. It sought
complete records of visas issued by the embassy in recent years to hundreds
of Pakistanis.
Two days later, FIA discovered that Asher Francis a confessed
member of human trafficking racket operating within the embassy has
been maintaining secret bank accounts of over Rupees 10 million apart from
being owner of huge properties and assets in Islamabad and Lahore. In a
series of raids, FIA recovered some important secret documents from his

151

house which further established that a big human trafficking racket was
active in Pakistan with blessing of officials and diplomats of the embassy.
On 25th April, a court in Lahore snubbed FIA officials for harassing
the victims of Swiss visa scam. Major Muhammad Ajmal linked to Asher
Francis in human trafficking managed to escape from Pakistan while FIA
was busy in harassing the victims. Swiss Embassy blamed Major Ajmal for
human smuggling racket. On 29th April, Asher Francis confessed to
tampering the passport of the most known victim, Ume Salma. Investigators
revealed that visa for Switzerland was sold for Rupees 250,000.
Swiss Foreign Minister arrived in Islamabad on 2nd May. Next day the
absconding Swiss Embassy official rejected corruption charges through a fax
message from London. He hinted at involvement of top Swiss diplomats in
human smuggling. On 4th May, the Government of Switzerland admitted that
internationally operating networks involved in human smuggling have
attempted to influence the Swiss Visa Section in its Embassy in Islamabad.
These criminal activities have damaged our intents and goodwill. The buck
was passed were it always fitted well.
Lahore High Court summoned the Swiss Ambassador, two diplomats
and Asher Francis to appear on May 11 in damages case filed by Ume
Salma. Interpol issued Red Notices for arrest of visa scandal prime suspect.
On 6th May, Switzerland closed scam-ridden visa section. Visiting minister
admitted abuse of visa procedure.
No analyst so far has picked up courage to comment on the
involvement of Swiss Embassy, the most civilized of the civilized, in human
smuggling. However, some expressed their views on other events reported
previously. Ghazi Salahuddin wrote about Aruna, a medical student who had
married a man of her choice and her father, a retired district judge, got case
registered against her husband under Hudood Ordinance.
A picture, they say, is worth a thousand words. Arunas photographs
published in the newspapers on Friday are a good example of this proverbial
statement. Captured by camera in a civil court in Hyderabad on Thursday,
she comes out as a heroic figure, struggling against a sea of troubles. You
can see her as a symbol. Also in evidence, in that image, is the stark injustice
of a society that can persecute an adult woman for the crime of falling in
love and choosing her own husband He opined that Aruna has found her
place in the gallery of those courageous Pakistani women who have
struggled for justice and social emancipation.

152

The analyst failed to mention that no Mulla or Madrassa, who are

often accused of tarnishing the soft image of Pakistan, could be blamed for
the ordeals of Aruna and other women in the gallery. In most cases the
government and its instruments of law enforcement and administration of
justice were responsible. In this case it was the police of a province
governed by the most enlightened and moderate son from Gujrat.
Adnan Rehmat did not spare the devil. If Pakistan has to face the
embarrassment of detentions and interrogations of its legislators and denials
of visas to them, the religious leaders are themselves to be blamed
Pakistans elected religious leaders will have to ask themselves the question
of why they are getting this special treatment. They cant exploit the softness
of democracy and democratic principles espoused by the West to attack
these very values.
Dr M S Jillani used Prime Ministers declaration that Pakistan would
not compromise its culture and traditions, to vent his feelings. Our claim to
have a separate land to preserve the culture and traditions of the Muslims of
the subcontinent had long been hijacked by a class that hardly had any
links with the realities of modern life. As such, we need the emergence of
a class which could demonstrate that our traditions, values and customs, and
the modern life can co-exist, enduring our lives and helping in our journey
towards prosperity.
What is ominous in this Gulf created by polarization of liberal and
conservative elements which is widening due to the absence of a strong
middle-class which is needed for social change that could accommodate
diverse ideas What one wants to point out is that the traditional values
did not thwart an individuals interest in modern technology or modern
lifestyle. Rather they provided an anchor to turbulence and drastic gives
and takes of ideas and attitudes that accompany major changes in society;
they are the great gifts of moderation, thoughtfulness and responsibility.
He then emphasized the need to focus on real ingredients of the soft
image. Our culture and traditions taught us the value of honesty,
truthfulness, love, humility, patience tolerance, service to others,
temperance, consideration for neighbours, simplicity, austerity, self-respect,
deference for elders, love for children, honour for women, help for the sick
and the needy, passion for knowledge, peace, proper dress, proper manners
of eating, greeting and conversation, etc, etc.
Anything wrong with their adoption once again, or any objection to
the suggestion that we do not put our feet on the desk, point a shoe towards
153

the person sitting next to us or assault a buffet table at a wedding etc?

One would propose to the prime minister that electronic media should be
motivated to re-establish our traditions; there are ways to do it effectively. It
can do miracles for the whole society.
Ambreen Kazmi from Peshawar criticized the wrong way to seek the
soft image, i.e. disowning our national heroes for the sake of enlightened
moderation. The death anniversary of Dr Allama Iqbal, the architect of
Pakistan and the most popular Muslim Philosopher came and went. Leading
newspapers did not bother to publish anything commemorating this event.
Allama Iqbal has always held a revered position in our history and
his visionary work, which is honoured even today, brought about the
revolution which created Pakistan. He challenged the western values of
civilization and highlighted the glorious culture, heritage and achievements
of Muslims of yesteryears besides warning the Muslims of the consequences
if they do not follow their ancestors The lady inadvertently mentioned the
reasons for ignoring the occasion. In the prevalent international scenario,
Allama could be accused of preaching militancy by criticizing the values of
the civilized world.
Iqbal Mustafa expressed his views on FSI in which Pakistan has
descended from 34th last year to 9th in 2006. Like in so many other matters,
we derive our perceptions about ourselves from external opinions rather
than our own objective analysis. The report has understandably evoked sharp
reactions in the country ranging from I told you so to soft denials.
This report is no more than a storm in the teacup and will fade from
our radars next week. Since it is going to reappear next year, let us muse
upon it before it becomes another stigma attached to our holy flag and scare
the invisible foreign investors away.
The propensity of failed states to export international terrorism, drugs
and weapon arsenals has shifted the attention of the prosperous countries.
Their viewpoint is not humanitarian or promotion of liberal values of
western democracies, diplomatic platitudes, notwithstanding. It is the
realization that a hungry man is an angry man and the empowerment of the
individual with technology is a potent threat in the 21 st century. The welfare
of people and groups falls under the domain of individual states to keep all
those factors in the bottle that can become catalysts for turmoil. The Failed
State Index is therefore a global early warning system for terrorist
incubators, so to say.

154

Pakistans ranking has fallen drastically in the last year but this is not
necessarily an indictment of governments performance as a sovereign
authority; it is more of a higher sensitivity towards the countrys potential
nuisance value in a global perspective. None of the twelve indicators on
which the rankings were computed has changed radically in the last one
year. It is perhaps the relative weightage fed to the software in terms of
indicators or the computing of different statistics.
In the late nineties when Pakistan was ostracized for nuclear
development and support of the Taliban, the US government used the term
failed state to describe the country. Since 9/11 and alignment of foreign
policy vis-s-vis terrorism with the US, Pakistan had earned a clean bill of
health. Now, it seems that distant thunder is looming over the horizon as
General Musharrafs war on terrorism is proving to be harder than a walk in
the park.
The stalemate in cleansing Pakistan of militant elements is putting
wind in the sails of the opposition parties and independent analysts who are
openly questioning the foreign policy as serving the interests of the US more
than Pakistan. Perhaps historians in times to come will conclude that
General Musharraf with all his good intentions bit more than he could
chew. It is an old habit, if one remembers the Kargil fiasco.

CONCLUSION
Pakistanis as a nation have been blamed for militancy, but now
Musharrafs sincerity is being doubted by quarters that matter, despite his
best of efforts to come up to the expectations of the Crusaders. No one, not
even Musharraf, can escape for too long from fallout of the prejudices
harboured by the West against Pakistan.
India has been pursuing the peace process in the same spirit in which
Israel is trekking roadmap to peace in the Middle East under intimate
guidance of the Crusaders. The only minor difference is that the former is
refusing to redraw borders and the latter intends doing it unilaterally.
Bush visit gave boost to political activities in Pakistan, mainly
because visitors statements about democracy were interpreted wishfully by
the opposition parties. Musharraf will still manage to prolong his rule, unless
something goes drastically wrong, and by virtue of that the future of PML-Q
is automatically secured.

155

Situation in Baluchistan will remain disturbed in foreseeable future,

mainly because of the support from outside. Similarly, the dream of
acquiring soft image will not be realized. In any case, what is the logic in
having such soft image which would serve as invitation to any beast for
molestation?
8th May 2006

JAAFARI TO MALIKI
During 1965 War, a young officer asked a JCO (junior commissioned
officer), veteran of World War II, what motivated him and his comrades in
Indian army to fight and kill. The JCO replied: if you dont kill the enemy,
he will kill you.
This is the spirit behind killings in free and liberated Iraq. From
occupation forces doctrine of troop protection practiced at checkpoints to
shoot women and children dead, to cold-blooded mass murders as result of
deliberately fanned sectarian hatred have the same motive behind them.
Within the Green Zone, the so-called political power has changed
hands from Allawi to Jaafari and now to Maliki, but real power rests with
men carrying guns; outsiders or the Iraqis. This makes the task of new prime
minister and his colleagues quite difficult to restore normalcy in the country.
The Crusaders consider the nomination of Maliki a giant leap towards
achievement of their goals in the region. With inspiration so drawn they have
openly joined hands with Olmert to topple Hamas and at the same time, they
have increased media and diplomatic hype against Iran. The issue of Iranian
Monster will be discussed separately.

ROUGH SEAS
Civil war-cum-insurgency continued. Six Iraqi soldiers were captured
and executed outside a restaurant in northern Iraq on 21 st April. Five
policemen and two civilians were killed in Khalis. A policeman was killed in
drive-by shooting. Four policemen were killed and two wounded in roadside

156

bombing in Mosul. Another bomb killed a civilian and wounded two

soldiers. One person was shot dead in Dora. Three soldiers were wounded in
roadside bombing in Yarmouk. Six officers were wounded in similar attack
in Qadissiya.
A senior human rights official of the UN stated that a total of 29,565
people were detained in Iraq out of which 14,222 were with coalition forces
and remaining with Iraqi security forces and only 8,300 were held by the
justice ministry, which is the only body that has the right to detain suspects
for more than 72 hours. These figures did not include the people held be
different militias and fighting groups.
A Sunni cleric was shot dead in Falluja on 22 nd April. Next day, three
US soldiers were killed in roadside bombing. An explosion near the wall of
Green Zone killed seven and wounded eight people. Dead bodies of eight
Iraqis were found. One person was shot dead by gunmen. Two policemen
were killed and one wounded in attack on a police general in Baiji. A
director of Turkish company was shot dead in Kirkuk. A roadside bomb blast
killed a driver and a child and wounded seven children in Mahmoudiyah. A
bomb targeted a US convoy but killed two civilians.
On 24th April, Iraqi police found 32 dead bodies of security personnel
from two areas of the capital, all of them had been kidnapped from Ramadi.
Seven car bombings in Baghdad killed five and wounded more than 100
people. Next day, a bomb blast in a minibus in Sadr City killed two and
wounded three people. Two persons were shot dead in Baqouba. Two
soldiers were killed near Balad. Two people were killed and nine wounded,
including three US soldiers, in a car bomb, four roadside bombings and two
drive-by shootings in different places. In all 19 people were killed in 24hours. Defence Ministry said insurgents carried out 469 attacks in last week.
Next day, twenty persons were killed in various incidents of violence
on 26 April. Next day, one Romanian and three Italian soldiers were killed
and two wounded when their convoy was attacked by roadside bombing in
Nasiriyah. Four policemen were killed and two wounded in attacks on posts
in Baqouba. Sister of Sunni Arab vice president was shot dead in Baghdad.
In all 20 people were killed on this day.
th

On 29th April, two-day curfew was lifted in Baqouba; during raids and
gun battles 25 people were killed and 51 suspected rebels were arrested. Two
officers were killed and five wounded in attack on a convoy of police chief
of Baiji. One policeman and a civilian were killed in a village south of
Baghdad. One police commando was killed and three others wounded in
157

roadside bombing near the capital. A US soldier was killed by a roadside

bomb near Baghdad.
Next day, US forces killed 20 suspected insurgents, arrested seven
militants and 50 suspects in a raid in Youssifiyah where a few days back a
US helicopter had crashed. A roadside bomb in Tikrit set a US Humvee on
fire. One policeman was killed and one wounded in Ramadi and the third
was kidnapped along with salary-cash they were escorting. Two policemen
and a civilian were wounded in two roadside bombs in Baghdad. Three
civilians were wounded in bomb blast in Sadr City. One civilian was
wounded in Musayyib in similar attack. A US convoy was attacked in
Rawah. Three people were killed and two wounded in attack south of the
capital. Southern Oil Company reported damage to two oil pipelines.
One US soldier was killed on 1st May in roadside bombing south of
the capital. Next day, two people were killed and five wounded when rebels
bombed a minibus in Baghdad. One civilian was killed and four wounded in
roadside bombing. One security guard was shot dead near Baqouba. One
person was killed and another wounded in a separate incident. Six dead
bodies were found from across the country.
On 6th May, four British soldiers were killed in helicopter crash and
two tanks and a vehicle were burnt by people. One US soldier and 18 Iraqis,
including three soldiers were killed around the country. Next day, at least 21
people were killed and 52 wounded in suicide car bombing in Karbala. In
another car bombing 8 people were killed and 15 wounded in Aadhamiya. In
yet another car bombing in Baghdad one civilian was killed and five
wounded. More than 40 dead bodies were found from different places. One
US soldier was killed in Tal Afar in exchange of fire with the rebels.
One US soldier was killed in roadside bombing near Baghdad on 8 th
May. Five persons were killed in car bomb attack and another five in mortar
fire in the capital and 3 Iraqis were killed in separate attacks by rebels.
Eleven dead bodies were found from different places. US military claimed
killing Ali Wali, a terrorist belonging to Kurdish Ansar al-Islam group.
At least 17 people were killed and 35 wounded in a suicide car
bombing in Tal Afar on 9th May. Next day, gunmen killed 12 employees of
electricity company near Baqouba. Deputy police intelligence was killed in a
separate incident. A Defence Ministry official was killed in Baghdad. One
soldier was killed in roadside bombing. Two traffic policemen were shot
dead in Yarmouk. Thirteen dead bodies were found near Dura. Ten persons,
including a US soldier were killed in different incidents on 11th May.
158

Sunni resistance is classified by the US military into three categories

al-Qaeda-led foreign fighters, groups loyal to Saddam, and rejectionists
who simply oppose a US presence in Iraq. But, practically the insurgency
has turned into civil war in which Sunni Arabs are pitched against Iraqi
forces and different militias in addition to the occupation forces.
Sunni Arabs have been complaining against killings by death squads
operating under the nose of the occupation forces and their puppets. In the
month of April more than one thousand people, mostly Sunni Arabs were
killed in Baghdad alone. At last, Talabani appealed for halt to sectarian
violence.
Meanwhile, violence in Iraq started causing problems for the
neighbours. On 30th April, Turkey massed troops along the border to carry
out operations against PKK. Iranian forces shelled Kurdish rebel positions in
Iraq for two days, forcing dozens of Kurdish families to flee. These incidents
happened only a week after Talabani and Khalilzad had defended Kurdish
Peshmerga by terming it regulated force, not a militia.

STAYING COURSE
The Crusaders focused on the so-called democratization of Iraq.
On 22nd April, Jalal Talabani was re-elected as President of Iraq by the
parliament. Soon after his election, he asked al-Maliki to form the next
government. Sunni Arab politician, Mahmud Mashhadani was elected as
Speaker of the parliament unopposed.
Rice and Rumsfeld dashed to Baghdad to dictate composition of the
new cabinet. Bush hailed the step towards formation of Iraqi government.
This is an important milestone on the road to democracy in Iraq, and it
marks the beginning of a new chapter in Americas involvement. On 9th
May, Maliki said new government was almost finalized as politicians to
head interior, defence, oil, finance and foreign ministries had been selected.
The New York Times termed Jaafaris ouster as a glimmer of hope in
Iraq. Ibrahim al-Jaafaris agreement to step aside and let his Shiite bloc
consider a new nominee for prime minister should finally break the
stalemate that has been paralyzing Iraqi politics since last Decembers
parliamentary election.
The most likely replacement nominees now being talked about are far
from ideal. But the only conceivable path to a better future than civil war

159

and chaos in Iraq is lined with distasteful compromise and leaps of faith. No
one believes that success is certain.
His critics victory is only partial. The price of Mr Jaafaris
withdrawal seems to have been an understanding that his replacement will
come from his own lackluster Dawa Party, which, besides being
fundamentalist and pro-Iranian, has formed a bloc with the most violenceprone and anti-American Shiite faction, led by Muqtada al-Sadr.
That process now needs to move forward expeditiously. Iraqi voters
who were forced to wait so long for democracy deserve to see its fruits.
Much of the last year was wasted under Mr Jaafaris inept and blundering
rule. The first four months of this year have been consumed in endless
maneouvring over his bid for a second term.
Tehran Times commended Jaafaris decision to step down. By
agreeing to allow the UIA to name a candidate for prime minister, Jaafari
made a wise decision that proved that he is only seeking a united and stable
Iraq However, not to be pessimistic, developments in Iraq do not seem
promising as daily terrorist attacks, mostly carried out by Saddam loyalists
and al-Qaeda followers, have brought the country to a near standstill and
made life bitter. Obviously, Tehran did not mention Shiite death squads.
The decision to replace Jaafari will most likely not lead to a breakthrough in efforts to halt the violence over the short term since the terrorists
have insinuated themselves so deeply into various parts of Iraqi society that
it will take many months or even years to completely uproot them.
Arab News wrote, the insurgents next priority is clearly to sow
divisions within the new government. It will be the responsibility of Iraqs
new legislators to demonstrate in Parliament that a representative,
pluralist democracy can succeed. If despite all the provocations to come,
they can manage to do this, then they will have demonstrated to the wider
country that the issues which appear to divide can be resolved successfully
by debate and compromise rather than violence.
Los Angeles Times urged, not only must Maliki create a consensus
government by artfully doling out Cabinet portfolios to Sunni, Shiite and
Kurdish representatives, he also must make good on his assurances to the
US that he will rein in sectarian militias. Unfortunately, like his
predecessor and Shiite soul mate, Ibrahim Jaafari, the new prime minister
seems to believe that these private armies can be tamed by incorporating
them in a national security force rather than disarming them. Almost all the
evidence indicates otherwise.
160

David C Gompert Wrote, while recommending the implementation of

the 2004 ban on militias, he urged, now that Iraqis have created a new
government, they and the US may be able to avert civil war if, perhaps
only if, they implement and enforce the militia law. If they do not, keeping
US troops in Iraq will get harder and harder to defend.
The New York Times, in another editorial, mentioned the challenge
for the new leader. Mr Maliki has won praise for pledging that only
government forces will be allowed to carry arms. But that will do little good
if he merely merges militia units into the Iraqi army and police forces as
he suggested Thursday in deference to a crucial political ally, Moqtada alSadr, who happens to head one of the deadliest Shiite militias. If that turns
out to be Mt Malikis plan, there can be little hope of avoiding civil war.
It is encouraging that he has promised to keep the Defence and
Interior Ministries out of the hands of sectarian politicians. He also needs to
make sure that his appointees to key economic ministries, including the Oil
Ministry, put competent professionals in charge of day-to-day management.
And the Constitution be adjusted to assure the central government a
sufficient share of Iraqs oil revenues.
Perhaps Maliki can succeed where Jaafari failed. At stake are not
only self-government and a cessation of civil strife for long-suffering Iraqis,
but also President Bushs confident predictions that the introduction of
democratic structures to Iraq would bring both freedom and peace paving
the way for an honourable exit for US troops.
David Ignatius expressed similar hopes while describing Malikis
credentials. To succeed, Maliki must mobilize that desire for unity to break
the power of militias and insurgent groups. His reputation is as someone
who is independent of Iran, explained Zalmay Khalilzad, the US
Ambassador to Baghdad. He explained that although Maliki initially went
into exile in Iran, he felt he was threatened by them because of his political
independence, and later moved to Syria. He sees himself as an Arab and an
Iraqi nationalist, Khalilzad said.
Malikis selection is something of a victory for Khalilzad, who has
been a match for the Iraqis in his wily political wrangling. The American
ambassador viewed Jaafari as too weak and sectarian. When Jaafari was renominated by the Shiite alliance in February, Khalilzad warned, initially in
this column, that the United States wouldnt support a government that did
not put unity first. Khalilzad helped organize a rival coalition of Kurdish and

161

Sunni politicians that represented 143 seats in parliament, more than the 130
seats of the Shiite alliance that had nominated Jaafari.
The rejection of Jaafari showed great courage on the part of key Shia
leaders, Khalilzad said. It showed that Sistani doesnt take Iranian
direction. It showed that (SCIRI leader) Abdul Aziz Hakim doesnt
succumb to Iranian pressure. He stood up to Iran. It showed the same thing
about the Kurdish leaders.
Gulf News wrote about the Rice Rumsfeld dash to Baghdad. With the
decreasing popularity of the Iraq occupation and of Rumsfeld himself, it is
to be expected that Rice and Rumsfeld would want to be seen singing
from the same song sheet, not least to make believe to everyone that all is
well with US Administration policy; and, of course, having a say in the new
Iraqi government appointments and policies.
The breaking of political stalemate strengthened the resolve of the
Crusaders to remain in occupation of Iraq for indefinite period. Iraqi
leadership was more determined than ever, said Bush. We think weve
partners to help the Iraqi people realize their dreams.
Benam Elmi touched upon the occupation plan for the future and
problem likely to be faced. The US Defence Department is planning to
establish six permanent military bases in Iraq. There are currently 75 US
military bases in Iraq The US policy on military bases in Iraq can be
better understood by taking a glance at the challenges the US is facing in
regard to its military bases in East Asia and Central Asia and Washingtons
new Iraq policy.
Joseph E Robert Jr opposed withdrawal of US troops. Nothing in
history is inevitable; events unfold as they do because leaders and their
publics make choices. Neither civil war nor a democratic, pluralist
government is predestined for Iraq. But one fact is clear: Premature
withdrawal of US forces before Iraqi troops are ready, or before the
political and economic situation stabilizes will condemn Iraq and the
region to a future of chaos, destruction and death.
Those, who wanted reduction of US forces in Iraq, suggested division
of Iraq into three parts. David S Broder quoted Biden, the senior Democrat
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the threat of sectarian violence
an incipient civil war between Shiites and Sunnis has become so great
that the United States must redefine its political goals in Iraq; instead of
betting everything on the creation of a unified government in Baghdad. We

162

should encourage the development of separate but linked regional

authorities in northern Iraq for the Kurds, in southern Iraq for the Shiites
and in central Iraq for the Sunnis.
It is a recognition of what he considers a reality that the component
parts of Iraqi society need breathing space to adjust their relations, rather
than continue down the present road, where militias loyal to one side or the
other are engaged in wanton killing and ethnic cleansing.
Bidens view is that Sunnis will continue to support the insurgency
rather than accept a unified government in which Shiites dominate and in
which oil revenue is monopolized by the Kurds in the north and the Shiites
in the south.
Anthony H Cordesman opposed the idea of division of Iraq. Some
pundits and politicians have been floating the idea that America considers
dividing Iraq into three ethno-religious entities, saying this would not only
stem the insurgency but also allow our troops an earlier exit. They are
wrong: fracturing the country would not serve either Iraqi or United
States interests, and would make life for average Iraqis even worse.
Any effort to divide the country on sectarian and ethnic lines would
require widespread relocations. This would probably be violent and
impoverish those forced to move, leave a legacy of fear and hatred, and
further delay Iraqs political and economic recovery.
And of course, there is no way to divide Iraqi that will not set off
fights over control of oil. More than 90 percent of Iraqs government
revenues come from oil exports. The Sunni Arab west has no developed oil
fields and thus would have no oil revenues. The Kurds want the northern oil
fields, but have no legitimate claim to them and no way to export the oil they
produce
Dividing Iraq would also harm regional stability and the war on
terrorists. Sunni Islamist extremist groups with ties to al-Qaeda already
dominate the Sunni insurgents, and division would only increase their hold
over average Iraqis. And with Iraqi Sunnis cut out of oil money, Arab Sunni
states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be forced to support them, if only
to avoid having the Islamist extremists take over this part of Iraq.
Iran, of course, would compete for the Iraqi Shiites. The Kurds have
no friends: Turkey, Iran and Syria would seek to destabilize the north and
exploit the divisions between the two main Kurdish political unions. In the
end, these divisions could spill over into the rest of the Middle East and the

163

Arab World, creating a risk of local conflicts and the kind of religious
tension that feeds Islamist extremism.
Benam Elmi was of the view that considering recent developments in
Iraq and the fact that the new national government has been established, the
presence of US forces and military bases will no longer be accepted by
either Iraq or world public opinion United States hegemonist policy is
now facing a serious global challenge
Ramzy Baroud dwelled on the persistent plight of Iraqis. The
emerging reality in Iraq without having to acknowledge time and again that
military occupation is the mother of all evils. But even if the occupation is
completely relegated as nuisance, the fact of the matter is that the military
occupation of Iraq is the core of the ongoing tragedy.
To pretend that the Iraqi resistance was not in fact a violent military
invasion, is to defy reality. Of course, the US Administration insists on doing
exactly that: Still speaking of a foreign espoused insurgency, engineered
by the shadowy figure of a Jordanian terrorist, who seems to appear in so
many different locations all at once.
To address Iraqs economic ills without addressing 10-years of
devastating sanctions, followed by a destructive war, invasion and a
domineering military occupation, that was precisely set forth to deprive
Iraq of its right over its own natural resources, is also to defy reality
Iraqs alluring economic wealth and its strategic import among other
reasons that inspired the American encroachment on Mesopotamia in the
first place How can an Iraqi government, led by al-Maliki or any other,
confront Iraqs economic crisis without having complete control physical
as well as political over the oil fields, the countrys most valuable asset
and the backbone of its economy?
The US influence over successive Iraqi leaderships since the first
days of the occupation has always translated into total control over the
decision making of whichever political body is placed at the helm, starting
with the Iraq governing council, to the interim government to whichever
government that is currently being concocted.
Without real control over the countrys physical space and wealth and
without a serious and fully independent political role, what can any
prospective Iraqi government really achieve? How can al-Maliki and his
potentially sectarian government end the insurgency without ending
the occupation, provide jobs without decisive control over the countrys oil

164

and make independent decisions if its political will is hostage to the US

government?
So why are some Iraqis taking part in this charade any way? As
devious and unconvincing as it is, many Iraqis see the current setup as a
source of hope, a starting point toward a better future for the battered
country.
Its indeed a pity that the media is once again coming to rescue the
beleaguered Bush Administration, acting as if Iraqs national resurrection
can be viewed separately from the overbearing and bloody US-British
occupation of the country. Its also regrettable that even Arab media is
following suit.
The fact of the matter is that much of the countrys ailments were a
direct result of the illegal war and violence that followed. Only an end to
the occupation can put Iraq on the right track toward national reconciliation
and return to normality.

MAKING HAY
The Crusaders succeeded in fanning Fatah-Hamas confrontation
through stoppage of aid and exploiting their decades-old links with Fatah.
On 21st April, Abbas revoked Hamas governments decision to create a new
security force of armed militants. Next day, the Fatah Party accused Hamas
of courting civil war and the two parties held a meeting to quell tensions.
Haniyah urged calm after Palestinian violence.
Abbas stressed that Hamas must negotiate with Israel, but further talks
within Palestinians were shelved amid power struggle between Hamas and
Abbas. On 8th May, three Palestinians were killed in clash between Hamas
and Fatah gunmen in Gaza. Jordan also joined the battle and claimed
arresting 20 activists of Hamas. Meanwhile, Israel continued perpetrating
state terrorism against Palestinians:
One Palestinian activist was killed and another wounded in Israeli air
strike in Gaza on 27th April.
On 1st May, Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian woman and
wounded her two daughters in Tulkarem.
Next day, two Palestinians were killed and three wounded in an
explosion in security base in Gaza Strip.

165

 On 5th May, five Palestinians were wounded in exchange of fire with

Israeli soldiers when they moved in to Balata refugee camp in West
Bank with bulldozers.
Palestinian Foreign Minister said Saudi Arabia has pledged $ 90
million aid to Palestinians. Chirac proposed World Bank account to channel
aid to the Palestinians and on 10th May the Quartet agreed to set up a new
mechanism to channel aid directly to Palestinians bypassing Hamas
government. Israel welcomed the decision and set the deadline for Hamasled government to meet its three demands by the end of the year to be
negotiating partner, failing which it would fix borders unilaterally.
Criticism of Israels belligerence and immoral support from the
Crusaders continued. Hasan Hanizadeh wrote, the April 22 edition of the
Israeli daily Haaretz quoted Zionist security officials as saying that the
Mossad is plotting to assassinate Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad
The daily also quoted Israeli security affairs analyst Amir Oren as saying
that Zionist security organizations are planning to assassinate the Iranian
president and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya.
Oren also claimed that Israel will not face very many problems or
serious reaction from the international community after the assassination of
these two figures Haaretz stated that the final decision on the
assassination of Ahmedinejad and Haniya would be taken upon the
approval of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
In the past, Israel has assassinated great number of Palestinian and
Lebanese figures It should be noted that after all these assassinations,
international organizations took no appropriate measures against the
Zionist regime for these despicable crimes If state-sponsored terrorism,
which the Zionist regime is trying to develop, is not addressed, it will
eventually become a directionless blind terrorism that will threaten global
security.
Chandra Muzaffar talked of Hamas viewpoint. Hamas has made it
explicitly clear that Israel as the occupying power must first withdraw
completely from the West Bank and Gaza (which is still very much under its
control), recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent and
sovereign Palestinian state, and acknowledge the non-negotiable right of
return of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees before Hamas reciprocates. This
is a legitimate demand in line with various UN resolutions on the IsraeliPalestinian conflict, international law, and the principles of justice.

166

Instead of punishing Hamas, the US and the EU should be

pressurizing the Tel Aviv regime to end its occupation and to abide by UN
resolutions. The mainstream media in the West and elsewhere should also
urge Tel Aviv and its backers to cease their subjugation and oppression of the
Palestinian people and to restore their rights. It is immoral for
governments and the media to concentrate their attack upon the victims
of occupation and oppression If Western elites are sincere about human
rights and justice, they should champion the cause of the dispossessed not
trample upon their dignity.
Ramzy Baroud opined that the Crusaders were deliberately making
Hamas mission impossible. Since facts and common sense are of little
concern to those who hastily decided to withhold badly needed funds to
support the battered economy of the Occupied Territories, there would be no
need to once again marvel at the rhetorical inconsistencies of the Bush
Administration and of the European Union.
It is quite clear that the US and the EUs real intentions are to
topple the Palestinian government, along with the sham of a doctrine
which claims that democratizing the Arabs is the ultimate policy objective of
George W Bush and Tony Blair.
Concurrently, the word is out that disgruntled Fatah members
whose party has dominated the political scene for many years until they
were cast aside last January by Palestinian voters, fed up with corruption and
nepotism are planning to stage wide protests demanding salaries and
government services. Early signs of such disorder have been plentiful in
recent weeks.
Moreover, former PA government advisors now posing as
independent experts with newly forged think-tanks sound as eager to
maintain a financial stranglehold on the new government as any pro-Israeli
analyst in a Washington-based neoconservative think-tank.
Its now politics at work; forget about a just solution to the conflict,
peace and democracy and all other ornamental phrases. Whats at play
here is politics, and dirty politics at that: Any Palestinian government or
leader, democratically elected or not, that fails to perform according to a
specified role and insists on addressing the central elements of the conflict,
must be fought, branded and discarded, no matter how pragmatic his
argument may be.
Yasser Arafat was caged in the basement of his battered offices in the
West Bank town of Ramallah for years, for simply failing to read his
167

assigned lines. The lapel of his jacket was decorated not only with the flag of
Palestine, but that of Israel as well. He condemned terrorism, shut down
Palestinian charities, imprisoned militant and political leaders, but was still
deemed irrelevant and was literally imprisoned until a mysterious illness
and death set him free.
He would call Israeli leaders my brothers, my partners, he would
condemn attacks on Israeli civilians and often neglected to even address
attacks on Palestinian civilians, yet he was told that all was not enough.
Arafat must condemn Palestinian terrorism in Arabic, US officials and
pundits parroted. He did. That too did not suffice. He must follow his words
with deeds, they further instructed, but without calling on Israel to free him
to achieve such a mission. He was humiliated, physically confined and
completely stripped of any tangible powers, and yet he was expected to
ensure Israels security while in his shackles. He was expected to do the
impossible, and naturally he failed.
History has an odd and often ironic way of repeating itself. The same
conditions are now being imposed on Hamas, who would, predictably, have
to do more to prove to be seen as a legitimate partner in a peace process
that doesnt exist and was not meant to exist.
Undoubtedly, Washington has no constructive foreign policy of its
own regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and is itself following an
Israeli script, one that will deem any Palestinian leadership terrorist,
irrelevant and no peace partner, even if the entire Palestinian leadership
was made of vegetarian, pacifist, Mother Teresa incarnates. Thats all beside
the point. All Israel is striving for is time: To consolidate its strong- hold
over occupied Jerusalem, to conclude the construction of its illegal
Apartheid Wall built mostly on Palestinian land and to demarcate its own
borders, which also happen to fall in Palestinian areas.
Meanwhile, let Palestinians starve, wrangle over pathetic powers
of the government and the president, and resort to Iran for financial aid.
None of this is of any concern to Israel, but it provides the further proof
needed to brand Palestinian incapable of governing themselves, and to make
obvious the evil alliance between Hamas and Iran which in turn places
the Palestinian government in the anti-American camp.
George S Hishmeh was of the view that Israel should declare its
own vision of peace rather than coercing Palestinians. When discussing the
case of Hezbollah, (in White House) the well-spoken Lebanese prime
minister explained to American hosts that his government cannot attempt to
168

disarm the Islamic militia group before Israel withdraws from the Shebba
Farms, a strip of land bordering Lebanon, Syria and Israel.
If the Lebanese position makes sense to some in the Bush
Administration, the Palestinian leadership, be they Hamas or Fatah, should
not be treated differently. Furthermore, it is high time that the Israeli
government declares its own vision for peace in the region.
Sami Moubayed expressed similar views. In the past, Israel refused
to negotiate with a government that included Hamas. Now due to its
stubbornness, Israel has to deal with a government that is Hamas. It is
completely wrong to say that the peace process was killed when Hamas
was voted to power. Peace process was for ever maimed and crippled when
Ariel Sharon became prime minister 2001. It died when Yasser Arafat was
killed in 2004
Hamas is not opposed to negotiations and is willing to conduct a
ceasefire with Israel, based on reciprocity. If Israel agrees to a ceasefire,
Hamas cannot but observe it. But if Israel continues in its killings, as it has
done recently despite the Hamas-observed truce, then Hamas cannot but
allow, or turn a blind eye to attacks by resistance movements such as Islamic
Jihad, which targeted Tel Aviv last month. Who benefits from the victory of
Hamas? Olmert needs Hamas because a Hamas government that is weak,
isolated and lacks international backing is better than an internationally
acclaimed one such as Arafats Fatah after 1993.
Arab News wrote about the financial crisis faced by the Hamas-led
government. Whatever funds may have been sent have amounted to almost
nothing. The Palestinian state is now in precisely the crisis that President
Mahmoud Abbas predicted. Some 165,000 Palestinian government
employees have not been paid salaries for weeks and have to beg and borrow
to survive.
But far more appalling is that the Palestinian Authority should have
become so totally dependent on Western aid. Thats asking for trouble
and trouble is what they have now that he who does not like the tune has
stopped paying the piper.
The lesson that the Palestinians need to take from this disaster is that
the aid they take must have a broader base. They cannot allow themselves to
ever again slide into a state of neocolonial economic dependency on the US
and EU. It is bad politics and bad economics. Not that they had much option.
By default, Arabs and Muslim governments are also complicit in this
disaster. Their insufficient giving is what has forced the Palestinians into
169

near absolute dependence on Western aid. Moral support is all very well, but
it does not pay salaries or feed mouths.
Ebrahim al-Abed talked of Olmerts plan to get US approval of his
design to fix borders unilaterally. The Israeli leader is scheduled to meet
US President George W Bush on May 23 at the White House. Top on his
agenda will be securing the American administrations approval of the plan
which he hopes will shape Israels permanent borders. He added that Israel
was going ahead of its plan in anticipation of the approval.
Olmert has said he will initially offer to negotiate with the
Palestinians, provided the Hamas government recognizes Israel, accepts the
previously signed agreements with the PLO and disavows terrorism
However, if negotiations do not advance, Olmert intends to carry out
unilateral steps towards establishing Israels borders. It is no more than lip
service to the idea of withdrawal by agreement.
The US is likely to support a withdrawal because it wants to show
some progress and there arent a lot of other options on the table, a source
said. At the same time, Olmert intends to order the construction of thousands
of housing units in the large colonies in order to absorb evacuees from the
West Bank settlements.
Adel Safty said US support was not something new. Israel is the
largest recipient of American aid, about $ 3 billion every year, which it can
freely divert to finance the occupation and the illegal colonies. Israel is the
only country on whose behalf the US used its veto repeatedly at the UN
Security Council, vetoing 32 resolutions critical of Israel since 1982.
The US consistently supported the Israeli position in all IsraeliArab negotiations from the Sinai Agreements in 1974, to Oslo in 1993, to
Camp David in 2000. One US participant at Camp David later said: far too
often, we functioned as Israels lawyer.
Johann Hari also focused on Olmertss plan. As the pro-Olmert
Mideast Mirror reassured its readers this week: The sum total of Olmert
plan is to reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians in the
territories, but its not to give up control over the West Bank even as Israel
evacuates as much as 90 percent of it. Troops would remain in the territory.
Yet still Olmerts plan is being presented as generous.
This is only true if you see the problem entirely from Israeli point
of view. Since the Israelis want to give up nothing, withdrawing from a few
scraps of the West Bank and leaving the Palestinians with around 13 percent

170

of historical Palestine is generous from their perspective. But if you look at

it from the perspective of what the Palestinians are entitled to under
international law, the picture is very different.
Hassan Tahsin wrote about Americas recent act of bias. Following
the Israeli Armys brutal operations in the Gaza Strip, the Arab group in New
York submitted a proposal to the Security Council calling on Israel to stop
the continuing violence against the Palestinians. Fourteen members of the
council supported the motion, but as was only to be expected, the United
States vetoed it. The Americans said the proposal was unfair to Israel. What
is more, it will hurt the feelings of Israelis while they were celebrating
the Jewish festival of Passover. Thus the United States gave Israel the green
light once again to go ahead with its one-sided steps.
He quoted John Gunther Dean. In many ways, the Palestine problem
is the most pervasive, complex and dangerous problem in American foreign
policy. It is also the most difficult to address because it is so deeply
embedded in guilt, emotion and fear as to be almost beyond rational
thought.
Dean, who worked in US Foreign Service for 50 years, added: When
Israel saw a conflict between its goals and ours; it naturally chose its own.
America has seldom done so. At the government level we tiptoe around
issues, which has severely harmed American interests
On the eve of the meeting of the Quartet, the Guardian wrote,
international law bans collective punishment a tenet the representatives of
the Middle East peace quartet should bear in mind when they meet in New
York today to consider the grave situation in the Palestinian territories It
does not take a genius to work out how to avoid this. Overall, greater
imagination and flexibility is needed to handle Hamas. Having carried
out 60 suicide bombings against Israeli targets, mostly civilians, it has
maintained a ceasefire for 16 months. That is more important than the
totemic issue of recognizing Israel. Palestinians voted for it because they had
despaired of progress towards a just peace under the discredited old PA
regime; not because they had converted en masse to Jihad.
Some analysts had become apprehensive about democratization of the
Arab World after Hamas victory. Madeleine K Albright rejected their
apprehensions. Just because the denial of political freedom is bad, that
doesnt mean the exercise of freedom will always be to our liking.
Democracy is a form of government; it is not a ticket to some heavenly
kingdom where all evil is vanquished and everyone agrees with us.
171

If Arab democracy develops, it will do so to advance Arab aspirations

based on Arab perceptions of history and justice. The right to vote and hold
office is unlikely to soften Arab attitudes toward Israel or to end the
potential for terror, just as it has been unable to prevent terrorist cells from
organizing in the West.
The realists are right to bemoan the invasion of Iraq, but that
misguided operation cannot be used to indict the promotion of
democracy. The purpose of the invasion was to seize weapons that did not
exist and to severe a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that
had not been made.
As for the Palestinians, let us be fair elections did not create
Hamas. Voters turned to that terrorist group only because prior Palestinian
governments didnt deliver. Now, precisely because of the elections, Hamas
will be tested as it has never been before, and it will be required to do what it
has never done. This will create pressure on the organization to refrain from
violence and to moderate its policies toward Israel. Democracy did not
create Hamas, but it may cause Hamas to change or to fail. Either outcome
would be an improvement on the status quo.
The time has come to start looking beyond the Bush Administration
to its successor. Our new leaders, of whichever party, will face daunting
challenges, including that of redefining what America stands for in the
world.

OPPOSING WINDS
Thousands of anti-war protesters marched in New York on 29th April,
but attention of the critics was drawn towards row with Iran over nuclear
issue. However, some analysts were not distracted. John F Kerry focused on
soldier-civilian row.
He wrote it is right to make clear that the best way to support the
troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonours their
sacrifices, and disserves the American people and our principles. True
patriots must defend the right of dissent and listen to the dissenters.
Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they
are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians trying to avoid
accountability or debate on their own policies.

172

In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders

have publicly called for the resignation of Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. And from the ranks of this administration and its conservative
surrogates, weve heard these calls dismissed as acts of disloyalty or as a
threat to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard
accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That line of
attack is shameful, especially coming from those who have never worn the
uniform.
Generals and others who call for recognizing the facts on the ground
in Iraq are not defeatists, they are patriots. At a time when mistake after
mistake is being compounded by the very civilian leadership in the Pentagon
that ignored expert military advice in the invasion and occupation of Iraq,
those who understand the price being paid for each mistake by our troops,
our country, and Iraq itself must be heard.
Linda Heard analyzed the prospects of the political change
from Jaafari to Maliki. Whether or not this new broom will be successful in
sweeping clean is another matter. He may have been heartily welcomed by
the White House but there were no celebratory fireworks display at home,
only more bombs, rocket attacks and internecine executions Al-Maliki,
who until now has taken a political back seat, must prove himself and fast,
so say the pundits. But we are kidding ourselves? Just how much autonomy
does the Iraqi government really enjoy?
First, Saddam Hussein is still in US custody and the court that is
trying him is obviously under US diktats More important, the Iraqi
government still has to abide by a slew of edicts or binding directives and
directives laid down by Iraqs former US viceroy Paul Bremer before the
political handover.
Then the big question is who gets to control Iraq oil. A report of the
Global Policy Forum suggests, the future of this valuable asset is being
decided behind closed doors The report suggests that while Iraqi public
opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to
foreign companies with the active involvement of the US and British
governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing
for a system of long-term contracts with foreign oil companies. These, it
says, will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic
control.
Bush says that once the Iraqi police and military become proficient,
US troops can begin to withdraw. But what he doesnt mention is that the
173

new billion dollar US Embassy currently being constructed is set to be

the largest and most fortified in history This mammoth project will cover
104 acres and comprise massive office blocks, apartment buildings, villas,
clubs, a food court as well as electricity and water treatment plants. The size
of the Vatican, this complex is set to be entirely independent from the rest of
Baghdad.
Given that Iraq is supposed to be a sovereign entity, one must surely
ask why the US needs this town within a city. Will there be only diplomats
living there or contingents from the military and CIA? One thing is certain.
Theyll be doing a lot more than hosting garden parties The US says it
bought the land upon which the complex is being built from the Iraqis, but
which Iraqi had the right to authorize this when until now there hasnt been a
permanent government?
Bush further omits to talk about the five permanent US bases that are
rump red to being built in Iraq. In fact, the administration has attempted to
quash these rumours However, Pentagon has requested hundreds of
millions of dollars for military construction in Iraq Even the US House
Appropriation Committee is suspicious citing the hefty amounts of being of
magnitude normally associated with permanent bases The Crucial test of
the Iraqi governments independence is whether the US will quit the
country if requested to do so.
Albright has referred to the invasion of Iraq as one of the greatest
failures of US foreign policy. This depends on how one looks at it. If the
US was out to control Iraqi oil, weaken Iraq so that its no longer a perceived
threat to Israel and establish strategic control over the region then it has
achieved just what it set out to do.
Marwan al-Kabalan wrote, it appears that the US invasion has
replaced one tyranny with another and the only difference was that
Saddam had never claimed to be a democratic leader. The US invasion,
moreover, did not bring the promised change that would sweep the whole
region, according to the US intellectuals.
It rather legitimized the status quo and gave Arab autocrats every
reason to tighten their grip on power and justify the cruel nature of their rule.
Look next door, they would tell their people, if you want us to leave, the
alternative is chaos, violence and indiscriminate killing.
Gary Younge talked of prisoner abuse. If the war on terror is a
plan to preserve and promote the values of the civilized world against
174

barbarism, then nobody told Mohammad al-Kahtani (20th hijacker of 9/11).

Since Kahtani has been incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, he has been
stripped naked and straddled by a taunting female guard, made to wear
knickers on his head and a bra, and told that his mother was a whore. He has
been shaved, held on a leash and forced to bark like a dog, put in isolation
for five months in a cell continuously flooded with artificial light, deprived
of heat, treated to a fake kidnapping and pumped with large quantities of
intravenous liquids without access to a toilet so that he urinated on himself.
But unlike Abu Ghraib, responsibility for Kahtanis abuse could not
be dumped on a group of working-class part-timers. According to sworn
statements by Schmidt Rumsfeld was personally involved in Kahtanis
interrogation and spoke every week with Guantanamo commander
Joseph E Robert Jr. criticized neglect of reconstruction.
Dangerous failures in Iraqs economic reconstruction are undermining
progress on the security and political fronts. US commanders are the first to
admit that this war will not be won by the military alone. You are not going
to shoot yourself out of this problem, says Lt Gen Peter Chiarelli,
commander of daily operations in Iraq. Of the estimated $ 300 billion spent
by Washington so far in Iraq, just $ 21 billion has been allocated for
reconstruction, and perhaps half this amount has been redirected to pressing
security needs.
The New York Times wrote about supplementary spending on
war. That is convenient for the administration, which does not have to count
the money when it is pretending to balance the budget. But Iraq is not some
kind of unexpected emergency, like Hurrican Katrina. It is a highly
predictable cost, now amounting to about $ i00 billion, or just 20 percent of
total military spending.
Congress would gladly vote the Pentagon every cent it needs to fight
in Iraq and Afghanistan and rebuild its ground forces so that they are
available for other military emergencies. But with so much of the war off the
budget, as it were, Congress is instead being asked to approve one of the
biggest military budget in American history for projects having little to do
with current fighting.
The regular defence budget at least goes through protracted review
by specialized authorization and appropriation committees that have some
familiarity with military operations. That does not prevent a lot of pork
being included. But the process is far more considered and transparent than
the circuses that govern supplemental spending The Bush Administration
175

has not done a very good job of talking straight to the American people
about Iraq. If it wants to start winning back some of its squandered
credibility, honest budgeting would be one good place to start.
Geoff D Porter wrote about the stoppage of aid to Palestine.
Immediately, Hamas officials fanned out across the Arab World to drum up
funds. Oil and gas-rich Algeria, Qatar and Saudi Arabia committed money.
The Arab League also promised financial support at its March meeting. But
no funds were actually transferred to the Palestinian Authority, because
the banks handling the contributions are wary of running afoul of American
laws against financing terrorist organizations. Muslim governments follow
the US laws more religiously than their moral obligations.
Iran, too, pledged to send money to the Palestinian Authority after a
high-level meeting with two Hamas leaders in Syria. And the Iranian
commitment is different from the Arab one. Although Mr Ahmedinejad does
not steer Irans foreign policy, his ideological rhetoric frames policy debates
and could compel Irans Guardian Council to give Hamas much more money
than Arab countries are willing to contribute.
He opined that aid cut would bring Hamas closer to Iran. The
closer Tehran draws to the Palestinian Authority, the likelier it is that the
Iranians would retaliate against any American military action on their
territory by encouraging Hamas to attack Israel.

CONCLUSION
The attitude of Islamic countries and the media is reflected in the
tolerance, accommodation and moderation displayed by the News. On 7 th
May, 30 people were killed and more than 70 wounded, but the news item
was tucked into inner page, whereas death of last Titanic survivor at the age
of 99 found place in front page in a blocked column.
Yet, the same media complains about the bias of western media. May
be, it was done as a matter of policy. If you cant do anything to stop the
killings of Muslims, there is no use agitating the sentiments of people far, far
away. Or, it might be in step with US policy of downplaying the bloodshed
in Iraq. Whatever the motive might be this attitude undermines the cause of
the resistance groups who have almost succeeded in mobilizing the world
opinion against the unjust and ugly war.

176

Maliki has been told to get into the shoes of Jaafari and wear his
crown. He will soon find where the shoe pinches whereas the crown poses
direct threat to his head. Whether he hurts his foot or loses the head, it will
not make any difference to the Crusaders who will find another Allawi, or
Jaafari, or Maliki from the fertile land of two rivers and continue
consolidating in the conquered land.
Analyst Amir Orens revelation that Zionist security organizations are
planning to assassinate the Iranian president and Palestinian Prime Minister
Ismail Haniyah indicates the reason behind Muslim rulers reluctance to
oppose Americas unjust war. They are wise enough to save themselves by
being on the right side of the global terrorists.
12th May 2006

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
As Iran faced pressure over developing the raw material for nuclear
weapons, Brazil quietly prepared to open its own uranium-enrichment
center, capable of producing exactly the same fuel. No hue and cry was
raised by the so-called international community, but on 21 st April, US
urged ban on military sales to Iran.
The same day, Tehran rejected Rices warning of self-defence and
said it was ready to cooperate with IAEA. Egypt said Iran wanted a peaceful
solution. Turkey and Pakistan had serious discussions to work together to
defuse tension over Irans nuclear issue. Moscow rejected sanctions without
proof. Irans envoy to the UN nuclear watchdog agency claimed that Iran
and Russia have reached basic deal on enrichment.
On 24th April, Nejad warned of quitting NPT, but he said short-term
enrichment freeze was possible. Next day, after a meeting with Sudanese
president Khamenei said Iran was ready to transfer its nuclear technology to
neighbouring countries. Washington claimed that isolation of Tehran had
deepened. Israel launched eye in the sky for vigil on Iran.
On 26th April, Azerbaijan ruled out help to US against Iran. Iran
threatened to strike US interests, if attacked. Two days later, IAEA reported

177

to UNSC that Iran has failed to comply with deadline. Tehran offered
timetable for cooperation and Bush desired peaceful resolution of the
dispute.
Iran offered intrusive inspections on 29th April. Pakistans Foreign
Secretary visiting Washington said his country would honour UN curbs on
Iran. Next day, Iran wanted probe by IAEA and not by UNSC. Laranjani
said Tehran cant be forced to halt nuclear plan. America said Islamic state
was playing games.
On 1st May, Iran asked UN to stop US making military threats. Next
day, all the five permanent members of the UNSC and Germany agreed that
Irans nuclear programme was not compatible with the demands of the
international community, a French official said at the end of meeting in
Paris. Iran claimed uranium enrichment to 4.8 percent.
The media campaign to demonize Iran was reinvigorated. Mark
Bowman reopened American hostage case of 1979 and implicated Nejad and
minister for energy. Two days later, Irans parliament passed a legislation
that would force the government to withdraw from NPT as US and its allies
pressed for a UNSC vote to outlaw Irans uranium enrichment programme.
On 8th May, Iran disclosed that Nejad has written a letter to Bush to
propose new ways for getting out of the existing vulnerable world situation.
Negroponte termed it a ploy to influence UNSC debate. The same day, two
bombs exploded in southwest Iran, one of the areas targeted by US in pursuit
of its policy of supporting the dissidents.
US dismissed Irans letter as it saw nothing new in that. Bush said the
letter failed to address international concerns. Rice said US will wait for
couple of weeks before pressing UNSC for action. Indonesia supported
Tehran. Israel said Iran wont give nukes to militants.
On 11th May, Nejad, while addressing students in Jakarta, said about
Israel that this regime one day will vanish. Next day, US rejected Annans
call for direct talks with Iran and Western diplomats claimed that UN
inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium; Iran denied.

BIASED US
As international political powers seek Irans capitulation on nuclear
weapons development, little notice is given to neither what the
Americans and the British have done to create this crisis nor what
178

steps the Israelis might eventually take to make it profoundly more

complicated, wrote James C Moore.
Irans antipathy toward the West did not spontaneously generate
out of the crazed rhetoric of radical mullahs. It has been spurred by what
Iranians see as hypocrisy on the part of members of the worlds nuclear
community, and the bumbled meddling of the US and UK in Iranian affairs
for more than a half century. Iran is dangerous, but the British and
Americans have helped to make it that way. And the situation is even more
precarious than it appears.
Shortly after the Gulf War in 1991, Germany gave Israel two of its
diesel-powered Dolphin-class submarines In November 2005, Germany
announced that it was selling two more subs to Israel for $ 1.2 billionboats
are a means for Israel to have second-strike capability from the sea if any of
its land-based defence systems are hit by enemy nuclear weapons.
The vessels have been fitted with US-made Harpoon missiles with
nuclear tips. Each Dolphin-class boat can carry 24 missilesHarpoons are
designated to seek out ship-sized targets on the sea but could be retrofitted
with a different guidance system Because the shallow waters of the
Persian Gulf make the Israeli subs easily detectable, two of them are
reported to be patrolling the deeper reaches of the Gulf of Oman, well within
range of Iranian targets.
Israel is the fifth-largest nuclear power on the planet with much of its
delivery systems technology funded by US taxpayers Before Ariel
Sharons health failed, Der Spiegel reported that the then Israeli prime
minister had ordered his countrys Mossad intelligence service to go into
Iran and identify nuclear facilities to be destroyed.
US military already has teams inside Iran picking targets and
working to facilitate political unrest. It is precisely this same type of tactic
by the US and the UK, used more than a half century ago, which has led us
to the contemporary nuclear precipice At the prompting of British
intelligence, the CIA executed strategic bombings and political harassments
of religious leaders, which became the foundation of Mosaddeqs overthrow.
Shah Reza Pahlevi, whose strings were pulled from Downing Street and
Washington, became a brutal dictator
Ikram Sehgal said the same thing. A CIA unit already seems to be
operating in Sistan and Baluchistan stirring up Iranian Baluch tribes. Does
this strike a chord about the incentive and support keeping Akbar Bugti in
the hills? The Iraqi-based Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) operating against
179

Iran with Saddam Husseins help had been disarmed; the Pentagon is
believed to be seeking MEKs re-activation.
Rabia Akhtar said, the norms through which the Non-Proliferation
Treaty was established, the ideals that it stands for, and the vision of a better
and safer world, would no longer hold if there is no fair play. If the
established nuclear powers keep on increasing their nuclear arsenal and
modifying their nuclear warheads it will be very difficult to stop other from
following suit.
Masooda Bano wrote, for the US to assume that Iran is bound to use
this technology eventually for weapons reflects its anti-Iran bias, given
that it is supporting Israel and India in the enhancement of their nuclear
technologies on the pretext of civilian use.
The talk of bias brings in Israeli factor. M K Bhadrakumar quoted
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, the Israelis say they dont have a
nuclear programme. But people were saying 25-30 years back that Israel had
a nuclear programme. If Irans nuclear programme is dangerous, Israels
is dangerous too. All countries should be open to the UN inspections. Saudi
Foreign Minister had also expressed similar views.
Kaleem Omar dwelled on this factor. In this escalating war of words,
several things seem to have been forgotten. One, the only country in the
Middle East with nuclear weapons is Israel, which has more than 200
nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them by missiles and bomber
aircraft. Two, in January 2003, just weeks before the US invasion of Iraq,
when Syria called for nuclear weapons-free Middle East, its call was met by
a deafening silence from Washington.
I Hassan was of the view that the biggest gun-pointing at all the oilproducing states is of course the state of Israel with its highly efficient
army, which has the mobility to move in any direction with rapidity. At the
same time, the US has the bases/troops in almost all the states of the Middle
East which are owner/producers of oil. It has troops in Saudi Arabia, has
occupied Iraq with no intention of leaving it and has the ability to move into
any of the states except Iran.
Menzies Campbell equated few other countries with Israel while
talking about the bias. Double standards over nuclear weapons are
commonplace. Why have Israel, India and Pakistan received no censure,
while Iran is the target of a global campaign? ... Iran is not a rogue state. It

180

cares about international opinion; it has signed the NPT, while India,
Pakistan and Israel have not.
Dr Mohammad Ekef Jamal bracketed Turkey with Jewish state. Israel
and Turkey are the most concerned countries. Israel has an extreme desire
to see a military strike against Iran, to reduce the Iranian nuclear project to
ashes, while Turkey has more than one reason to worry.
Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri mentioned the reasons behind this bias;
genuine or imagined. Of course, Irans stand is that it is not making nuclear
weapons and that its nuclear enrichment is for peaceful purposes a claim
that is seen with deep suspicion by Israel, the US and other Western
countries. The view is bolstered by Irans clandestine, unreported nuclear
activities over many years, its abundant hydrocarbon resources, the nature of
the Islamic regime and the recent spate on incendiary statements.
Israel feels if and when Iran gets nuclearized it would be grudgingly
accepted as a regional power by its immediate neighbours. Moreover, it is
haunted by the fear that the US attitude would abruptly change as it did
towards North Korea after it crossed the nuclear threshold. After Iran has
acquired N-weapons, it is further argued, the latter would not only be in a
position to intimidate its Arab Gulf neighbours but would be able to more
energetically fund anti-Israel groups, hold a direct threat to Israel and to the
US forces and installations in the region including naval fleets, and above all
block oil supplies through the Gulf. These acts Iran could also undertake in
its pre-nuclear phase if it were attacked.
The prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran is a chilling
thought for Israel. It feels that time is running out fast. However, Israel is
reluctant to act alone. It needs to piggyback on its benefactor, the US, and
preferably desires the US to perform the dirty work of dealing with Iran.
Either Israel acts alone or in unison to strike a pre-nuclear Iran, the reaction
in the Islamic World would be strong and severe.
Kaleem Omar opined that the biggest threat to world peace is
not Irans fledgling nuclear programme (which even Western experts say is
years away from achieving nuclear weapons capability) but the USs and
Russias nuclear arsenals. Both countries have more than 12,000 warheads
enough to wipe out humanity several times over.
He explained the dangers posed by the very existence of piles of
these weapons by narrating the 1983 false alarm created by the computer
error. The nuclear war was averted by the prudence and cool-headedness of

181

the Russian officer on duty, Lt Col Stanislav Petrov. Had the incident
happened the other-way round, the Yankee mentality of sharp-shooting
would have triggered the nuclear war. Analyst mentioned the Americans
eagerness to use nuclear weapons in future wars.
The Bush Administrations foreign policy includes actual plans to
use nuclear bombs as pre-emptive weapons. Soon after taking office in
January 2001 (before 9/11), President George W Bush directed the US
military to prepare plans to use tactical nuclear weapons against at least
seven countries China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya and Iraq.
Nobody should buy the Pentagons argument that these tactical
nukes are small and wont be all that horrific. Nuclear weapons even if
they are smaller than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, will not
only kill on impact, but raise immense radioactive dust, with the terrible
results of slow, agonizing death from radiation.
Yet the US Senate has approved Bushs request to lift a 10-year ban
on research, development and production of nuclear weapons of less than 5
kilotons. The US is spending billions of dollars a year on developing new
nuclear weapons, and the Los Alamos National Laboratories (which
developed the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs) have developed earth
penetrator mini nukes, also known as bunker-busters.
In 2003, Bush Administrations officials talked of using these bunkerbuster weapons against Iraq. Now, there is a talk in Washington of using
bunker-buster bombs to destroy Irans nuclear facilities many of which
are reported to be deep underground.
Jason Miller was of the view that most of the worlds nuclear weapons
were stocked in North America, which harbours worlds most dangerous
terrorists. Given the knowledge that it is the United States which created
and primarily wields the power to extinguish life on Earth, it is not a
tremendous intellectual leap to classify the American government as the
worlds most dangerous and most powerful terrorist.
According to the FBI, domestic terrorism is: the unlawful use, or
threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based on
operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign
direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance
of political or social objectives.

182

What could be more threatening or violent than a nuclear attack?

What could be more coercive that the US imposition of its will, culture, and
ruthless economic agenda on a global populace like a domineering father
abusing his cowed children? Employing terrorist tools of intimidation,
coercion and threats of violence, the United States consistently sets the
political and social objectives for the rest of the world.
Bearing in mind that the atomic bombs deployed in Japan were
mere firecrackers relative to todays nukes, the following puts a grim
perspective on the situation: A single Hiroshima-size blast in downtown
Los Angeles, according to a computer projectionwould kill about 150,000
people immediately and 100,000 more from neutron and gamma radiation.
An additional 800,000 people would be exposed to high-level radiation.
The combined nuclear capacity of the United States and Russia at the
height of the nuclear arms race was enough to eradicate the Earth of life
1,500 times overin 2004 the United States had 10,000 nuclear warheads,
7,000 of which were operational.
With over 500 land-based ICBMs, the United States can incinerate
any region of a 4.5 billion year old planet within a mere 35 minutes. In
addition it has submarine-based Trident nuclear missiles and a fleet of B-1,
B-2 and B-52 long-range bombers which can rain nuclear hell upon
millions of unsuspecting units of collateral damage.
The United States began diverting substantial portions of its
obscene defence budget to its Stockpile Stewardship Program to perpetuate
and expand its nuclear capacities On the domestic front, Americas
bellicose government is emphasizing the enhancement of existing nuclear
weapons to give the appearance that it is not developing new ones.
To neutralize nations which have developed weapons facilities deep
underground, America created the B61-11 to burrow into rock before
discharging its nuclear payload. Americas Neocons are itching to play
with their new toys in Iran.
The Pentagon claims that these bunker-busters would pose no threat
to life outside of the underground targets. Scientists have different view.
No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to
contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the
15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon.
A messiah complex, severely stunted emotional intelligence, and
profound ignorance are the defining characteristics of the man capable of

183

making nuclear holocaust a reality within minutes. In the light of this,

Osama bin Laden, bow-cutters, and suicide bombers dont seem quite so
formidable or worrisome.
Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri said, whatever the motives, it seems Israel
is not the prime cause of Irans N-programme but the increasing US
hostility, fear of its encirclement and threats of regime change. In fact,
the US inflammatory rhetoric after 9/11 branding Iran as evil, an outpost of
tyranny and a rogue regime has worsened the already estranged relations.
Earlier, the US invasions (of Afghanistan and Iraq) and the prolonged
occupations had convinced many Iranians of nuclear weapons utility as a
deterrent. Hence, Iran is following a policy in which defiance, national pride
and survival commingle.

MILITARY OPTION
Bush Administration has been loud-thinking about military options
since long with motive too obvious. The analysts have been pondering about
the pros and cons of the various options. Most of them visualized the
negative impact on US interests in the region; others expressed concern over
the devastation likely to be caused by another military campaign. Some
ruled out the possibility of military action, but few urged the US to go ahead.

Opponents of military action warned that invasion of Iran could

prove disastrous. Linda S Heard said, Iran is not Iraq and there are no
cakewalks being touted this time around. After mentioning Nejads
warnings to pull Iran out of the NPT and step up uranium enrichment and
that oil process would likely top $ 100 mark if Iran sanctions are imposed,
she mentioned about Iranian plans to deploy North Korean and Russian
missiles Iran has also threatened to block the Straits of Hormuz and to
target US bases throughout the region.
Iran has gone a step further recruiting eight Islamic fundamentalist
groups willing to retaliate against the US and Britain in the event Iran
comes under attack, says al-Sharq al-Aswat. Code named Judgment Day
such attacks would rely heavily on suicide bombers.
Al-Sharq al-Aswat reports that up to 1,200 followers of Iraqi cleric
Moqtada al-Sadr have received military training in camps, built by the Quds
Army of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the Iran-Iraq border Al-Sadr
has already sworn to stand with Iran faced with a US-Iran conflict. Which
way Iraqs Dawa and SCIRI parties will jump is still unknown? One can also
184

expect anti-US rumblings from Shiites in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Syria and
Lebanon.
Russia would have much to lose if the US got its hooks into Iran as
apart from millions of dollars worth of contracts, the sight of the Star
Spangled Banner fluttering over the Caspian would not be a welcome
sight Chinas public statements on Iran are similarly low key but it has
been busy shopping for oil in both Latin America and Africa and has signed
substantial energy agreements with Tehran.
Without such a resolution that would, in effect, label Iran a danger to
the international community, the US would be on a legal slippery slope if it
decided to launch preemptive strikes against a country that has never
threatened it. Indeed, the self-defence casus belli, enshrined in the United
Nations Charter would not be applicable.
James C Moore argued against military option on the basis of Irans
ability to make things difficult for the US. Including reserves, the Iranian
Army has 850,000 troops enough to deal with strained American forces
in Iraq, even if US reserves were to be deployed. The Iranians also have
North Korean surface-to-air missiles with a 1,550-mile range and able to
carry a nuclear warhead America cannot invade and occupy. Irans
response would likely be an invasion of southern Iraq, populated, as is Iran,
with Shiites who could be enlisted to further destabilize Iraq.
Ikram Sehgal argued on the basis of nationalistic spirit of the Iranians.
Even though liberals may not be enamoured by President Ahmedinejad or
his government, Iranians are very nationalistic, on the nuclear issue they
are united and charged, the regime change option will not materialize. The
Iranian regime has put the threatened US invasion to good use, uniting
Iranians on one pro-nuclear platform.
Azam Khalil cautioned, all American forces in the areas
neighbouring Iran would be endangered and a serious uprising in Iraq could
spell disaster for the United States. Even if the Iranians fail to blockade the
Strait of Hormuz, they have achieved the capability to disrupt the flow of
oil in this strategic region.
Robert E Hunter wrote, while preventing Iran from becoming a
nuclear power is a bipartisan goal shared by just about everyone, the risks
and perils of a war with Iran are little discussed in public by government
leaders and are barely mentioned by the media.

185

Theres no question that if Iran developed nuclear weapons the move

would further unsettle the Middle East, put US friends and allies at higher
risk, raise fears of diversion of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, frighten
Israel, and undercut American authority in the Persian Gulf.
At the same time, a US attack on Iran would likely cause a spike in
the price of oil, alienate Muslims, create a split within the NATO
alliance, and lead to an increase in terrorism. It might even draw Iranian
forces over the Iraqi border to attack US troops.
Dennis Ross had similar views. The alternative of using force to
prevent or forestall the Iranians going nuclear does not look much better. To
begin with, there are no simple or clean military options. Air operations
alone might involve striking hundreds of targets, many in populated areas
where there are significant air defence capabilities in the process of being
upgraded by the Russians. The more casualties we inflict, the more we
inflame the Islamic World.
Perhaps we could manage the response if the military campaign
inflicted relatively few casualties and succeeded in setting back the Iranian
nuclear program. But such a rosy scenario assumes that Irans ability to
retaliate is relatively limited. Even if we have the means to prevent the
Iranian navy and air force from shutting down shipping into and out of the
Persian Gulf, Iran has other options for turning any effort to take out its
nuclear capability into a wider war.
Zbigniew Brzezinski opposed even the air strike against nuclear
facilities of Iran. There are four compelling reasons against a preventive
air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:
First, in the absence of an imminent threat, the attack would be a
unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional
declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the
impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the
sanction of the United Nations Security Councilit would stamp the
perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).
Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound
ongoing US difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were
to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil

186

 Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become
an even more likely target of terrorism While prospects for an
eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbours
would be even more remote.
In short, an attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting
in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs. With the US increasingly
the object of widespread hostility, the era of American preponderance could
even come to a premature end Even if the United States is not planning an
imminent military strike on Iran, persistent hints by official spokesmen that
the military option is on the table impede the kind of negotiations that
could make that option necessary.
Military threats also reinforce growing international suspicions
that the US might be deliberately encouraging greater Iranian intransigence.
Sadly, one has to wonder whether, in fact, such suspicions may not be partly
justified It is therefore high time for the administration to sober up and
think strategically, with historic perspective and the US national interest
primarily in mind. Its time to cool the rhetoric. The United States should not
be guided by emotions or a sense of a religiously inspired mission.
Dr Mohammad Ekef Jamal said, military action is no solution to the
crisis. This is simply because Irans retaliation will be powerful and
devastating, causing damage to the interests of countries that import oil from
the region If the US and its allies decide to launch military action, there is
only one scenario for the war. It will involve destroying Irans missile and
naval capabilities. Such a scenario means the breakout of a real war with a
major country (Iran) in the region This option would be in harmony with
the cowboy mentality that dominates the US Administration, and may serve
the interests of some countries that are worried about Americas increasing
global dominance.
He indirectly urged other global powers and countries of the region to
play their role in avoiding the war with Iran. The peace doves in China and
Russia have not been able to soothe the tension between Iran and the
countries opposed to its programme Where do Arabs stand in this crisis?
The situation has only served to show how weak Arab countries are, both
politically and militarily. They have failed to formulate an effective security
system that protects them from any potential crisis.
Ivan Eland Wrote, Iran has hidden and buried nuclear facilities and
put them in populated areas, which would be difficult for the United States
to bomb without causing an international outcry. US intelligence is
187

unlikely to know the locations of all of the Iranian nuclear facilities, and Iran
may even have a separate parallel set of facilities unbeknownst to the
international community.
M B Naqvi wrote, the shock of America using nuclear weapons on
non-nuclear countries would make the world far more dangerous than it
already is. The American star will not rise to farther skies or create awe and
shock. American prestige would plummet insofar as its standing in the world
and global public opinion are concerned.
Ardent supporters of Americanization of the region urged the US
for regime change in Iran. Amir Taheri has been one of them. The
Middle East today is passing through what historians describe as
disequilibrium. This happens when the status quo is shattered while a
new one has not yet been found Will the new Middle East, which is
bound to emerge sooner or later, be an American one or Iranian one or an
Irano-American one?
The United States, at least as long as President George W Bush is in
charge, regards the shaping of a friendly Middle East not only as a good
thing in itself but also as vital for American security. The Bush Doctrine is
based on the axiom that democracies do not export terrorism or start wars
against other democracies. The strategic interests of the US, therefore,
dictate that hostile regimes be replaced by friendly ones. Surprisingly, for
him, there are no democratically elected governments in Iran and Palestine.
What would happen when, say 10 years from now, the whole of the
region is pro-American, included in the mainstream of globalization, and
more or less prosperous and more or less democratic? Wouldnt an antiAmerican, isolated, more or less poverty-stricken, and openly undemocratic
Islamic republic look like out of place in this new jigsaw?
If the US is allowed to create the kind of the Middle East with which
it feels comfortable, it is obvious that the Islamic republic, as the odd man
out, will feel uncomfortable, not to say threatened? This is why the Islamic
republic is determined not to allow the US to succeed in the region.
In every single country of the region from Pakistan to Morocco
the US and the Islamic republic are engaged in almost daily political,
diplomatic and, at times, even proxy military combat, with varying degree of
intensity. The Islamic republic is actively engaged in sabotaging US plans
for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and has revived its dormant
networks in more than a dozen Arab countries.

188

The way change happened in Kabul was different from the way it
happened in Baghdad. And, were it to happen in Tehran, it would again be
different. Nor should we assume that a policy of regime change should be
put into immediate effect. For a range of reasons that might not be possible,
or even desirable The important thing is to realize that the Middle East
will not be out of crisis until one side gives in.
Howard LaFranchi urged for the same indirectly. The 30-day pause in
deliberations on Iran was designed to give the Iranian government an
opportunity to cease uranium enrichment, reassure the world that it is not
proceeding along a path to nuclear armament and stave off further
international action.
But if anything, Iran has used the days preceding a return to the
Security Council to rattle the international community: not only to boast of a
perfected enrichment process, but to do it with veiled references to secret
enrichment sites and to accelerated nuclear development The Iranian
game plan appears to be set up a confrontation with the West that not
only divides the international community but shatters any consensus against
its nuclear programme, analysts say.
Die-hards like Jackson Diehl were busy in demonizing Nejad for the
same purpose. He blamed Nejad for anticipating the end of the world by
talking about emergence of 12th Imam in two years time. He also quoted
Montazeri and Saanei, who as political opponents of Nejad, demand
enforcement of democratic values. Pro-Iran cleric of Iraq, Sistani was also
accused of successfully updating the role of Islam in government.
Many analysts indulged in predicting the war. Let me tell you
about the next war. It will start sooner than you think sometime between
now and September. And it will be precipitated by the $ 700 million
Russian deal this week to sell Tor air defence missile systems to Iran,
prophesized Roosa Brooks.
When the war begins, it will be between Iran and Israel. Before it
ends, though, it may set the whole of the Middle East on fire, pulling the
United States, leaving a legacy of instability that will last for generations
and permanently ending a century of American supremacy.
As international pressure over their nuclear program mounts, the
Iranians have become increasingly bellicose toward the US and Israel
Israel has upped the rhetorical heat as well. On Tuesday, Prime Minister

189

Ehud Olmert reiterated Israels determination to make sure no one has the
capability or the power to commit destruction against us.
Irans nuclear facilities are dispersed and well-concealed, making a
preemptive Israeli strike is far more difficult this time around. But theres
no reason to doubt Israels willingness to try (but) Israel has a
substantial incentive to wait to see if a diplomatic solution can be found
The clock is ticking for Israel. To have a hope of succeeding, any unilateral
Israeli strike against Iran must take place before September, when the Tor
missile deployment is set to be completed.
At best, a conflict between Israel and Iran (with resulting civilian
casualties) would further inflame anti-Israel sentiment in the Islamic World,
with a consequent increase in terrorism, both against Israel and against the
US, Israels main foreign backerthe entire Middle East could implode,
terrorist attacks worldwide would increase, the already overstretched US
military would be badly damaged and US global influence would wane
perhaps forever, the analyst ended on pessimistic note.
Gwynne Dyer did not agree with the predicted time bracket.
Whatever his long-term plans, US President George W Bush is unlikely to
attack Iran before the mid-term Congressional elections in November,
for three of the last four global recessions were triggered by a sharp rise in
the oil price.
Dr Mohammad Ekef Jamal agreed with Gwynne Dyer. While this
crisis has to end, it may not happen in the near future since there are special
considerations by the White House, which is getting ready for the
Congressional elections in November. Meanwhile, at an international
level, the United States can mobilize international efforts and get
approval to take preventive measures against Iran, including military action,
according to Article No 7 of United Nations Charter.
Many analysts agreed that Israel may drag US into military
confrontation. According to Linda S Heard the legal technicality, however,
would not deter Israel. Israels Prime Minister designate Ehud Olmert has
already likened Ahmedinejad to Hitler, warning that the Iranian leader is a
psychopath and an anti-Semite out to annihilate the Jewish state. For his
part, Bush has repeatedly promised to defend Israel come what may.
Addressing a gathering in Cleveland on March 20, Bush said: The
threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally
Israel. Its a threat to world peace; its a threat, in essence, to a strong

190

alliance. I made it clear, Ill make it clear again, that we will use military
might to protect our ally, Israel.
James C Moore said, there are also reported to be thousands of
underground nuclear facilities and uranium gas centrifuges in Iran, and it is
impossible for all of them to be eliminated. But the Israelis might be
willing to try. An Israeli attack on Iran would give Bush some political
cover at home. The president could continue to argue that Israel has a right
to protect itself And Americas Harpoon missiles would be delivering the
warheads. These would blow up Iranian nuclear facilities and also launch an
army of Iranian terrorists into the Western world.
Ikram Sehgal wrote, contrary to world perception the US does not
exercise inordinate influence over Israeli decision-making; at best there is
close consultation on many issues The US may be forced into the
conflict despite its own reservations and political compulsions. Commando
(and even bombing) raids by Israel could virtually be suicide missions but a
nation that has grown up with a Masada-psyche should know a thing or two
about why a suicide bomber becomes one.
He added, sceptics may consider it ludicrous, there is an outside
danger Pakistan may even become a simultaneous target. Reputed analyst
Eric Margolis says that Pakistan is definitely on the US agenda after Iran.
Could Israeli (or US) planners afford the risk of leaving a Muslim nuclear
state with the means of missile delivery system intact if there is war with
Iran?
Given the deliberate ambiguity of Indian PM Manmohan Singhs
pointed statement to a Muslim delegation, India cannot afford another
nuclear state in its neighbourhood, should one not be apprehensive that
India as the newly US-appointed policeman of the region, takes the
opportunity for a final solution vis--vis Pakistan butting into effect Cold
Start? Our US ally has pointedly (and quite brusquely) excluded us from the
nuclear club; after all we are not as responsible as India.
Menzies Campbell was careful in predicting the possibility of military
confrontation. I doubt that any democratically elected leader would be
brave enough to wage an illegal war on Iran. But by failing to take steps to
reduce tensions, the British and American governments have made a
diplomatic outcome less likely.
Azam Khalil predicted prolonged air strikes. The Americans cannot
invade Iran with soldiers because the damage would be unbearable, even if
only in terms of American casualties. The most probable scene is a
191

prolonged campaign of air strikes that would ultimately lead to the

crippling of the Iranian state.
Marwan al-Kabalan wrote, the US troubles in Iraq, the declining
popularity of Bush at home and the difficulties facing the US project in
other parts of the region do not seem sufficient to prevent the US from
launching a massive military attack to stop Iran from going nuclear. The
stakes are, hence, high for the Bush Administration and allowing Iran to
possess nuclear weapons will at the very least mean the end of the US
national security strategy in the Middle East.
James C Moore observed that the possibility lied in Bush-psyche. But
George W Bush is still without a respectable presidential legacy. He might
be willing to risk everything to mark his place in history as the man who
stopped Iran from getting nukes. The greater fear, though, is that he becomes
the first person to pull the nuclear trigger since Hiroshima and Nagasaki
and then his place in the history books will be assured.

SANCTIONS
Arrogance of the Crusaders and tenacity of the Iranians had pushed
the row beyond the scope and utility of economic sanctions. The imposition
of sanctions under Chapter-7 of the UN Charter was opposed by Russia and
China because such imposition automatically leads to the next step; the
military action. Therefore, there was less talk of sanctions during the period
as compared to the past. Nevertheless, some quarters mentioned this option.
The News wrote, for the opponents of a nuclear Iran, it appears
abnormal that China and Russia are not supporting action against a regime
which is very likely to use nuclear weapons if and when it has them. Those
who see the issue as an excuse that the Americans are trying to make for
forcing an oil-rich but unfriendly Muslim country into the corner do not find
it easy to square Irans nukes with Americas global ambitions, especially an
era of extremely high oil prices. Technically, what separates a Chapter VII
resolution of the United Security Council from the one adopted under other
chapters of the UN Charter is not easily understandable for most readers
and listeners of 24X7 news bulletins.
The Guardian wrote, at this delicate juncture the world community
must avoid the disarray that preceded, and ultimately facilitated, war in Iraq.
China and Russia oppose talk of sanctions, partly because Iraq is the worlds

192

fourth largest oil producer at a time of rising prices. The US is already

talking about coalition of the willing a sure way to weaken the UN.
Dennis Ross accused Russia and China of restricting options for the
Crusaders. With the Russians and Chinese seemingly determined to block
sanctions, our efforts at the United Nations promise to evolve slowly while
Iran presses ahead with its plans. If we stay on the same path, we will be
left with two choices: accept the reality of Irans nuclear weapons capability
or take military action to set back its ambitions.
He added, either outcome could prove disastrous. If Iran succeeds, in
all likelihood we will face a nuclear Middle East. The Saudis fearing
emboldened Iran determined to coerce others and to promote Shiite
subversion in the Arabian Peninsula will seek their own nuclear capability,
and probably already have a deal with Pakistan to provide it should Iran pose
this kind of threat
As for those who think that the nuclear deterrent rules that governed
relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold
War will also apply in a nuclear Middle East: Dont be so confident. For one
thing, the possible number of nuclear countries will drive up the
potential of miscalculation. For another, with an Iranian president who sees
himself as an instrument for accelerating the coming of the 12 th Imam
which is preceded in the mythology by the equivalent of Armageddon one
should not take comfort in the thinking that Iran will act responsibly.
But what if we could threaten collective sanctions that the Iranians
would see as biting? What if those were combined with possible gains in
terms of a deal on nuclear energy, economic benefits and security
understandings if the Iranians would give up the nuclear program?
While one can argue that the Europeans were trying to negotiate
something like this with the Iranians, they were never able to put together a
package of credible sanctions and inducements, because the United States
was not really a part of the effort. True, this country has coordinated with the
British, French and Germans in the Bush second term. But a serious effort
at raising the costs to the Iranians and offering possible gains has never
been put together.
Why not now? Why not have the president go to the British, French
and German counterparts and say: We will join you at the table with the
Iranians, but first let us agree on an extensive set of meaningful not
marginal economic and political sanctions that we will impose if the
negotiations fail. It precludes that negotiations would certainly fail.
193

The Christian Science Monitor was of the view that Iran appears
more interested in extending its regional and global power rather than lifting
its people out of massive joblessness. If it wants nuclear weapons, then that
goal doesnt appear to be defensive.
The next step for the US is to ask the Security Council to require
(rather than request) that Iran comply with the IAEA standards, citing
the UN Charter provision known as Chapter 7. If Iran again ignores that
tougher message, then the US would have UN authority to gather support
from many nations for penalties such as sanctions.

DIALOGUE
There is another way but a prerequisite to this would be responsible
adults in power rather than a bunch of testosterone charged, agenda-led
warmongers, wrote Linda S Heard. Why cant representatives from
Washington and Tehran get together, share a plate of cashews and
simply talk?
Rose Gottemoeller said the same thing. The United States could
join the discussion with Iran about its interests in the future of nuclear
power. After all, the United States is talking to other countries about global
warming and energy security problems under the auspices of its new Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership.
It was suggested that the best way to keep Iran nuclear-free is to do
whatever is diplomatically necessary to keep the IAEA inspectors in there,
not blustering about military action and giving Iran excuses to press ahead
unsupervised.
The News wrote, Chinas insistence on a diplomatic solution, rather
than the one based on arm twisting through military or economic means, is a
little less confusing. Chinese diplomats are seeking to invest more
authority into IAEAs efforts at curbing Iranian nuclear ambitions, instead
of letting the Security Council deal with the issue
Los Angeles Times stressed, Washington must be prepared to deemphasize its regime change agenda and to seek more subtle ways of
trying to influence the Iranian regimes demeanor The Bush
Administration, in concert with the Europeans, may conceivably be able to
coax, cajole or bully the Russians and the Chinese out of vetoing a
meaningful Security Council resolution against Iran. But this wont be

194

enough. Tehran wont budge without the message from Russia and China
that they will support subsequent action to enforce resolutions or punish Iran
for non-compliance.
Even if it plays all cards perfectly, the administration may end up
with an unfriendly nuclear power in the heart of the Middle East. But under
any scenario, it will be important for the United States to make a
convincing case to the world that it worked tirelessly and creatively with
other nations on the diplomatic front to keep weapons out of the hands of
Irans rulers.
Zbigniew Brzezinski said, it is true, however, that an eventual Iranian
acquisition of nuclear weapons would heighten tensions in the region and
perhaps prompt imitation by such countries as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Israel, despite its large nuclear arsenal, would feel less secure He
suggested, serious negotiations require not only a patient engagement but
also a constructive atmosphere. Artificial deadlines, pronounced most often
by those who do not wish the US to negotiate in earnest, are counterproductive
Robert E Hunter recommended the use of peace ploy to strike a
bargain. As loathsome as Americans find Irans hatred of the West, calls
for the destruction of Israel, and absurd denials of the Holocaust by its
president, Irans legitimate security concerns have to be on any serious
agenda for talks.
The Guardian felt that striking a bargain was possible. Some argue
that the best course would be to acquiesce in an Iranian bomb. That may yet
happen. But there is much more to be done. What is needed is a return to
the idea that a bargain can be struck with Iran, or at least with the
pragmatists sidelined by the president. It can have security guarantees if it
accepts UN demands. The US needs Iranian help over the mess next door in
Iraq. Denouncing Tehran as dictatorial and revolutionary wont bring that.
Ivan Eland expressed cautious optimism. The United States needs to
propose a grand bargain with Iran such as that offered North Korea and
accepted by Libya With the US and Israel threats neutralized by the nonaggression treaty, the Iranians just might feel secure enough to scrap
their nuclear programme. But even with that offer, Iran, which lives in
dangerous neighbourhood, may still elect to proceed with its quest for
nuclear armaments.

195

The Iranian government would be reluctant to give nuclear weapons,

which are expensive to develop, to unpredictable terrorists groups that might
be traced back to Iran, thus putting a bulls eye on Iran. He added that
because the United States has no viable military solution against the Iranian
nuclear programme, it should offer Iran a grand bargain. If that fails, the
United States may have to accept a nuclear Iran; an outcome far from
optimal, but not catastrophic either.
Gullaume Parmentier advised that before venturing on bargaining the
difference of opinion between America and Europe should be resolve.
America feels that the main danger to international security comes from
governments that combine hostility towards US policy with poor human
records. For the Europeans, the issue is essentially one on nuclear
proliferation and attention must therefore be paid to the regional equation,
since this is the main catalyst for a national decision to obtain nuclear
weapons. On that basis, a serious transatlantic crisis may be in the
making if western powers do not reconcile their divergent perspectives.
For the Europeans, it is wrong to concentrate exclusively on the
nuclear issue. The broader problem lies in Irans relationship with the rest of
the world The analogy with Iraq is wrong, at least at this stage. If only for
military reasons, occupation and regime change is out of the question.
Selective strikes against nuclear installations would only ensure the
eventual development by Iran of nuclear weapons, with massive population
support. And isolating would only buttress an unpopular regime and give it a
scapegoat to blame for the countrys difficulties. Any embargo that would
strike the population would be as counterproductive as has been the US one
on Cuba.
Better to hold our nose and maintain contact with the country
while using information, visits, economic relations and the like in the hope
that it will weaken the leadership in the long haul. After all, it worked with
the Soviets.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan opined, Washingtons present policy of
intimidating Iran would only create instabilities that would exacerbate the
situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and eventually work to the detriment of all
the neighbours. Its current unilateralism is not comparable with the longterm interests of the regional states. He desired that America must give
way to a more inclusive pattern of consultative decision-making.
The News said that the neighbours of Iran must facilitate talks.
The conflict will have negative fallouts in all the seven countries bordering
196

Iran. However, with occupied Iraq out of the reckoning, Pakistan and Turkey
remain Irans only important neighbours. So it falls to them to do whatever
they can to prevent it. Their top-level consultations on this are evidence that
they are actively engaged in the effort.
Ikram Sehgal opined that contacts between Washington and Tehran
were already established. Unlike common perception the US will not rush
into war. There are confirmed reports about diplomatic back-channel
talks; an aide of Irans nuclear chief was believed to be in Washington
talking to US officials.
The Christian Science Monitor wrote that dialogue with Iran wont
work. With Libya, such talks worked because it wanted economic benefits
for its people. Talks with North Korea are failing because it prefers to
brandish nuclear weapons as a way to wield power over its neighbours. It
opined that the same will happen in Irans case.
Lately, Annan urged America to hold dialogue with Iran. The News
wrote, the UN secretary general wants all stakeholders and key players, to
be around the table, as he said in his American television interview on
Thursday. Iran might be more forthcoming, he reasoned, if the United
States were at the table, even if Tehran held back in previous negotiations
with the EU-3, Britain, France and Germany. He said that if the US agreed to
negotiate as well, a package that would satisfy the concerns of everybody
would be possible to work out.
Contrary to the Bush Administration, the government of President
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has been saying it is ready for such talks.
However, it has insisted it would only negotiate on the condition that the
talks deal with large-scale uranium enrichment, and not be based on the
Western powers demand that Iran cease all enrichment
Dr Annan indirectly acknowledged that right. Offer the Iranians a
diplomatic package allowing them to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful
ends, he suggested. And if they resist that, how do they explain to the
world? Indeed, he thereby also rejected the position of the UN Security
Council, which in March 29 demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment to
remove suspicions that it seeks nuclear weapons.

IRANIAN STANCE
The enrichment of uranium is perfectly legal under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it is not a forgone conclusion that Iran has
197

decided to acquire nuclear weapons, said Adel Safty. Still, even if Iran
were to become a nuclear power, why would that be a destabilizing force in
the Middle East?
What stable environment would a nuclear Iran threaten? The
answer: the American occupation of Iraq, the continued Israeli oppression of
the Palestinians, the rise of democratically elected Islamic groups
challenging the pro-Western secular regimes and continued American threats
against Syria If Iran were to become the second nuclear power in the
Middle East, its threat to American and Israeli hegemony and the chaos they
produced in the region may not be destabilizing development.
The unhelpful rhetoric of the Iranian leadership notwithstanding, a
nuclear Iran could not possibly carry out its threat of annihilating Israel
because it knows if such an enterprise were ever attempted against Israel, it
would lead to annihilation of Iran itself. Whatever the Iranian regime may
be, it is not irrational or crazy.
Burhanuddin Hasan wrote, Ahmedinejad appears determined to make
the most of the nuclear card to bolster his standing among his people. It was
no coincidence that he announced Iran had enriched uranium on April 9, the
date that the United States severed diplomatic ties with Iran in 1980. He and
other top leaders of Iran see the nuclear programme as a lever to get the
United States to recognize Iran as a big, regional power and deal with it on
that basis.
Even the Guardian acknowledged that Iranians have some good
arguments on their side. The failure of the five official nuclear powers to
meet their disarmament obligations is one. The breakout of non-NPT
signatories India and Pakistan is another. Then there is the tolerance of
Israels nuclear might and the double standard that represents. That does not
mean Mr Ahmedinejads bombastic and irresponsible threats to annihilate
the Jewish state can be written out of the picture; on the contrary, they make
his behaviour all the more alarming.
Tariq Ali said, the country is not only ringed by atomic states
(India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Israel), it also faces a string of American
bases with potential or actual nuclear stockpiles in Qatar, Iraq, Turkey,
Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Nuclear-armed US aircraft carriers and
submarines patrol the waters off its southern coast.
Tehran Times accused Western governments and media of distorting
the facts. A glance at current events shows that media info wars are more

198

common than physical wars. The media cause controversy. They fabricate
believable stories by distorting the news.
Governments present lies as facts and facts as lies to the people
through the media. Through clever media manipulation, they try to make
their rivals back down before political tension rises to the point where a
physical war breaks out.
At this point of time, Western media outlets have intensified the
media info war. This war began long ago but has taken on a new form due
to recent advances in technology Along these lines, Western countries are
currently trying to force Iranian officials to back down on the nuclear issue
by creating tension and using info war.
Giving it realized the deception used to gain support for the US-led
invasion of Iraq, the world is not going to be tricked into accepting another
war The US is currently attempting to use the same technique to create
phantom controversies and baseless lies in order to confront Iran.
However, public opinion in many countries, especially the traditional
allies of the US, is beginning to reject Washingtons policies and actions.
People all over the world have come to the conclusion that US officials
policy of promoting their preferred form of democracy is just a ploy
meant to extend US hegemony over the entire globe.
Washington is trying to hinder the Islamic Republics
development because Irans nuclear achievements are a challenge to US
hegemony. In addition, Western countries are attempting to convince the
world that Iran is a threat to world peace so that they can manipulate the
dispute over Irans nuclear program for their own benefit.
In a subsequent editorial the Tehran Times criticized statements of
Bush and Merkel at the gathering of the American Jewish Committee. It
was unexpected and surprising when Merkel said, the right of existence of
the state of Israel must never be questioned; and this is why it is intolerable
for any German government when the Iranian president questions the right
of Israels existence.
If Mrs Merkel review Tehrans official position, she would notice that
Irans proposal for settling the Palestinian issue is the only
comprehensive and reasonable solution to decades of violence, bloodshed,
and agony in Palestine, which Western powers have failed to prevent.
If Merkel took the time to study Irans proposal she would realize
that Iran has not put into question the existence of a nation or race. If
199

she took a deeper look at history she would be surprised to see that Iran has
never experienced anti-Semitism, has the largest Jewish community of all
the Muslim states in the region, numbering about 25,000, and was the first
country which had a law guaranteeing freedom of religion and recognizing
the rights of all races.
Saying that occupying others land is illegal is not threatening
other peoples right to exist. Even Hamas leaders have said that if Israel
returns to the 1967 borders and allows the return of Palestinian refugees,
many things would change.
When Merkel said Iran must be prevented from getting nuclear
weapons, she insulted the intelligence of impartial and informed
persons who are aware that the International Atomic Energy Agency has
conducted three years of intensive inspections of Irans nuclear program and
has announced that it has found no hard evidence suggesting that Tehrans
nuclear activities have been diverted to a weapons program.
Merkel probably made these unrealistic statements in order to
appease the Jewish community. The lies of these leaders of important
countries only further besmirch the reputation of the officials and
politicians of Germany and the United State. However, the same day the
Boston Globe acclaimed Merkel as sensible ally.
Dr Ahmedinejad had been complaining that the two or three
countries dominating international institutions had nuclear weapons and
they say that you cant even have nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. If
having nuclear fuel is bad, why do they have it? If its good, why do they
not allow us to?
Irans viewpoint was explicitly conveyed in Ahmedinejads letter
to Bush. Siddarth Varadarajan discussed the letter with candid remarks.
With the exception of one highly regrettable sentence implicitly questioning
the historicity of the Nazi holocaust against the Jews and another hinting at
the complicity of US intelligence agencies in 9/11, Iranian President
Mamoud Ahmedinejads 18-page letter to his American counterpart, George
W Bush, is a tour de force of the kind the world of diplomacy has not seen
for a long time.
This extraordinary document cleverly drafted in the religious
idiom that Mr Bush and his neoconservative advisers allegedly believe
in, complete with a reference to Judgment Day is the first official
communication from the head of the head of the Iranian government to an

200

American President since the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah. It is
also a masterpiece of political clarity and philosophical opaqueness, which
will frustrate and provoke Washington.
The world sees the well-timed letter as a diplomatic opening
which it mostly certainly is but the Bush Administration is not interested in
diplomacy. Nor does it look kindly upon those who seek to suggest that the
recent crescendo of allegations against Iran resembles the lies Washington
told about weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to its disastrous
invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The experience of Iraq is the single most important argument the
Iranian President marshals to make the point that the Bush
Administrations policy towards Iran is misconceived and dangerous.
And he urges the American President to change course lest he be judged
harshly by three separate courts: God, of history and of his own people.
Because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Mr
Ahmedinejads letter notes, the country was occupied, around one hundred
thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed,
close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes
of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years What
was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any
culture, and you do not like to be lied to.
To the people of the United States, Mr Ahmedinejad offers a
reminder of the high price they are paying thanks to the Bush
Administrations lies in Iraq: Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the
treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of
men and women as occupation troops put in harms way, taken away
from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others,
subjected to so much of psychological pressure that everyday some commit
suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and
grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies
handed to their families.
Post-9/11, Mr Ahmedinejad writes, the American people have been
made to feel less secure thanks to their governments policies. And the US
administration has thrown all principles of human rights out of the
window by incarcerating people indefinitely without trial and maintaining
secret prisons. In a direct reference to Mr Bushs much-publicized religious
beliefs, the Iranian President asks how all this can be reconciled with
someone being a follower of Jesus Christ, the great Messenger of God.
201

The analyst mentions about letters written by Mossadegh to

Eisenhower in 1953, which failed to get the desired response. But, unlike
President Bush, who got Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reject Mr
Ahmedinejads letter, Eisenhower gave Mossadegh the courtesy of a reply.
But he was also dishonest and misleading.
As a former teacher, Mr Ahmedinejad knows Irans history well. He
also knows Mossadegh erred in not correctly reading the intentions of the
US and in being reactive, Elected to the presidency last year, Mr
Ahmedinejad quickly and correctly concluded that there was no way
the Bush Administration would give up its goal of regime change in
Iran. After all, the opening to Washington attempted by his more liberal
predecessor, Mohammed Khatami, had not only been summarily rejected but
rewarded by Irans inclusion in the axis of evil. Mr Ahmedinejad was
equally certain that no matter what concessions Tehran made to provide its
European interlocutors objective guarantees of its peaceful nuclear
intentions, Washington would never accept the development or retention of
safeguard fuel cycle activities by Iran.
Commenting on the letter, the News wrote, whether his audience
listens to and believes in him, is none of his concern because he is only
emulating his great mentor Ayatollah Khomeini who wrote a letter to the
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, inviting him to embrace Islam as a cure to
the curse his country suffered from.
For Washington, the letter should read like a leaf from its own
policy papers, turned on its head. Ahmadinejad seems as much concerned
about the world around him as is George W Bush but the two could do much
better by keeping their concern to themselves.
Hasan Hanizadeh viewed the letter differently. Ahmedinejads letter
to Bush is a brave measure that can altar the current political and
psychological climate. It is said that the weak leaders trigger wars, but
peace is the legacy of powerful leaders. And it seems that the US and Iranian
presidents are powerful enough to make the case for peace to their people.
He counseled the addressee; yet, the world is currently suffering from
the ominous phenomenon of terrorism, and Western countries can only deal
with this scourge by reviewing their regional and international policies
Now even though Saddam Hussein has been deposed, a new form of
terrorism has arisen which is threatening security in both the region and the
entire world. Therefore, Western officials should not be swayed by certain
countries, which are actually the main factors behind terrorism, and should
202

realistically analyze the regional and global situation and make use of
Irans cultural and geopolitical influence in order to control terrorism in
the region. Iran is now very powerful country that can play a constructive
role in many important global developments. Isolating Iran would not be to
the benefit of the West.
Praful Bidwai had yet another interpretation. The Iranian
Establishment seems to want an honourable compromise with the West. Its
following a two-track strategy. At one level, its defiant on pursuing uranium
enrichment. At the other, its quietly sending out signals that Iran wants a
peaceful resolution of the issue.
Iran is an imperfect democracy, without adequate rights. But its one
of the few countries in the Middle East with universal franchise and fair
elections. Official Irans paranoia is traceable to the sense of being cornered
by Washington, The more acute the sense, the greater the restrictions on
freedom. To become a more open, free society based on human rights, Iran
should not be targeted. The world, including the US, has much to gain by
normalizing relations with Iran.

THE OUTCOME
Irans insistence on its right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful
purposes; American arrogance on not conceding this right, its hesitation to
adopt military option; its refusal to negotiate a solution through dialogue;
and lack of consensus on imposition of economic sanctions promised no
positive outcome. However, the impasse had some negative/positive
impacts.
Ivan Eland opined that the invasion of Iraq and subsequent US
military threats against Iran have actually intensified the Iranian desire to
get nuclear weapons to keep the superpower out. He added that countries
interested in developing nuclear technology saw the respect that a nuclear
North Korea got from the United States as well as the absence of respect that
a non-nuclear Iraq received.
The tactics of intimidation have in fact emboldened Iran as was
evident from Perviz Esmaellis comments on 5+1 deliberations on the issue.
The fact that the Westerners are talking about diplomatic solutions and
returning to talks while, led by the US, they have recently been using harsh

203

language toward Iran shows that Irans national resistance to gain access
to the complete nuclear fuel cycle has borne fruit. Thus, it is not
necessary for the Islamic Republic to respond harshly to the new situation.
On the other hand, the outcome of the Monday meeting proves that
the position of Iran has improved in international calculations At least
the great powers have apparently realized that they must change the 5+1 into
the 5+1+1 to address Irans nuclear program.
If this happens, as a preliminary gesture, the 5+1 should agree to
recognize Irans nuclear rights according to the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), and specifically Irans right to conduct peaceful nuclear
activities in line with Article 4 of the NPT Irans declared technical
activities must continue as planned. Along these lines, starting the new 164centrifuge cascades could improve Irans position in any possible
compromises.
The truth is that Russia, Germany, China, France, Britain and
even the United States have been Irans allies, but with a bad record. Iran
holds shares in Frances largest uranium enrichment facility, Eurodif. The
US and Britain are indebted to Iran for shares of Namibias Rossing Mine.
Iran does not regard China or Germany as trustworthy, either, due to their
failure to fulfill their commitments.
The News observed that the US was on the retreat. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Washington that her government would
consider an offer that would allow (the Iranians) to have a civil nuclear
programme if that is, indeed, what they want. Indeed it is. Iran has always
insisted its programme is of a non-military nature. For the United States to
concede that right to Tehran is proof that the Bush Administration knows
now that it cannot compel a divided Security Council to take punitive
measures, and is ready to wait for Council unity to evolve. We felt that
two weeks to continue to try to work for Council unity was well worth it,
Ms Rice remarked.
On the other hand, Ms Rice named certain conditions which Mr
Ahmedinejads government has already rejected for example, the US and
the EU wouldnt permit Iran to enrich and reprocess uranium on its own
territory. If Iran defied what she called the international community; it would
face isolation and UN Security Council action. That remains to be seen.
For now, though, Irans combined firmness and diplomacy appears to
have paid off.

204

An important impact was in terms of revival of the Cold War, by

the desperate Western analysts and the government officials. Roosa Brooks
wrote, despite the high stakes, the Bush Administration seems barely to
have noticed the danger posed by the Russian missile sale. But the signs
are there, for those inclined to read them.
But Russian brinkmanship is about to remove Israels incentive to
pursue a peaceful diplomatic path. Russian leaders continue to mouth the
usual diplomatic platitudes about democracy and global cooperation, but
Russia is actually playing a complex double game There are no
circumstances which would get in the way of us carrying out our
commitments in the field of military cooperation with Iran declared Nikolai
Spassky, deputy head of Russias National Security Council.
The upcoming deployment of Tor missiles around Iranian nuclear
sites dramatically changes the calculus in the Middle East, and it
significantly increases the risk of a regional war. Once the missile systems
are deployed, Irans air defence will become far more sophisticated, and
Israel will likely lose whatever ability it now has to unilaterally destroy
Irans nuclear facilities.
So what is Russia up to? Andrei Pointkovsky, a Russian political
analyst, suggests that Russias oil and gas oligarchs wouldnt shed any tears
over a war in the Middle East, especially if its a war that ensnares the US
and keeps oil prices high.
A quiet but firm US threat to boycott the G-8 summit in July in
St. Petersburg might inspire Russian President Vladimir V Putin to freeze
the missile transfer. And a promise to facilitate Russian entry into the World
Trade Organization might even get Russias oil and gas oligarchs on board.
Freezing the missile sale would buy crucial time to find a diplomatic
solution to the stalemate over Irans nuclear program.
Vladimir Radyudin blamed the United States for declaring a new Cold
War on Russia. Washingtons change of heart has been largely provoked
by Moscows increasingly assertive foreign policy and determined
upholding of national interests. In the past few months alone, Russia has
stood up to the US on all major foreign policy issues. Moscow has defied
Washington on Iran, rejecting its call for sanctions against Tehran, going
ahead with the construction of Irans first nuclear power station, and refusing
to back down on a $ 700 million deal to sell anti-aircraft missile systems to
Iran.

205

Following the victory of Hamas in Palestine, Mr Putin welcomed its

leaders in Moscow and gave financial aid to the new administration against
the wishes of the US and the European Union. Adding insult to injury, the
Russian leader lectured the West on Palestine, telling it: to burn bridges
is the easiest, but not the most effective thing to do in politics.
Washingtons effort to forge a united front of European states
against excessive dependence on Russia for oil and gas has fallen
through when Germany broke ranks. It first signed a historic deal to build a
new pipeline across the Baltic Sea to pump more Russian natural gas to
Europe, then gave Russia access to the European energy distribution
network through a partnership agreement between Russias Gasprom and
Germanys BASF companies.
What enrages Washington most is that it can do precious little to
bring Moscow to heel. Russia no longer needs Western credits, with its
economy rebounding and its coffers bursting at the seams from record oil
export windfall Washington cannot hope, either, to instigate a Ukrainetype coloured revolution in Russia, where Mr Putin enjoys a 70 percent
support rating.
Ikram Sehgal had similar views. During the first cold war, the US
(and the West) had a great advantage over the socialist economies which
were no match for the free economies; this time around a public-private
sector mix and the presence of oil and gas in abundance in Russia should
make the East-West confrontation evenly balanced and thus, much more
interesting.
Simon Tisdall analysed Cheneys charge against Russia. Dick
Cheneys just-completed East European rampage left Russia in a rage.
Peppering grapeshot in his inimitable way, the US vice-president accused
the Kremlin of using oil and gas exports to intimidate and blackmail
European neighbours; of interfering with democratic movements in places
such as Ukraine; and unfairly and improperly restricting civil rights.
His down-home criticisms produced a stampede of upright Russian
officials angrily shooting back. The Cold War hustler did not know what he
was talking about, they said. But Sergel Lavrov, Russias foreign Minister,
kept cool. I believe such statements wont undermine efforts we are making
together with the United Statesto build a fair world without conflicts, he
said. Russia expects to be perceived as an equal partner in the world arena
without whose involvement it is impossible to solve a single problem.

206

From Vladimir Putin down, Moscows new century message is that

Yeltsin-era weakness has finally been banished. The Kremlin is a global
player once more, whether the issue is Iran or Hamas, global warming or
energy security. Buoyed by an ocean of petro-dollars and a reviving
nationalism, Russia is back and, Mr Lavrov implied, the US must deal on
its terms.
When Mr Bush called Mr Putin last week to seek his support on Iran,
the Russian leader countered with a demand that talks on Russias World
Trade Organization membership be speedily concluded. Mr Bush promised
to help meanwhile, Russia is still blocking UN action against Tehran.
US efforts to rein in Russia are also compromised by Americas
chronic foreign energy addiction and perceived double standards. Trading
on ties forged during his time as a Halliburton oilman in Texas, Mr Cheney
urged Kazakh leaders to build new pipelines bypassing Russia.
The Boston Globe joined the Cold War hype. Putin has not reinstated
the Soviet power system, although vestigial traces of that old order linger.
Nor does the house that Putin built resemble the liberal democracies and
free-market economies of the other seven members of the Group of Eight
industrialized nations that will meet in St Petersburg in July with Putin as
chair.
Playing to a popular nostalgia for Russias lost status as a world
power, Putin spoke of assuring security by building new submarines and
missiles to deter rivals from seeking to eliminate Russia. And he claimed to
be building an army that has been demoralized by years of brutalizing
counter-insurgent warfare in Chechnya.
The realistic note was sounded when Putin turned to Russias
dramatic demographic decline. The current Russian population stands at 142
million. As a consequence of low birth rates and a high mortality rate that
has brought average life expectancy down to 53 years for Russian males,
some projections foresee that by 2050 Russias total population will fall
below 100 million. That shrinking population will inhabit a country that
spreads over one-seventh of the worlds landmass. Putin has addressed the
problem of population-decline by proposing monthly subsidies of 1,500
rubles ($55) per child to new mothers.
Jim Bakers told Cheney and the Boston Globe about the right
language that ought to be used when it comes to Cold War. When it seems
to have gone out of its way at times to frighten, antagonize and generally
alienate much of the world these past five years, the Bush Administration
207

has made strenuous efforts to stay on friendly terms with one famous former
adversary The US made collegiality with Russia one of the highest
priorities of its foreign policy from the moment five years ago when George
Bush looked into the eyes of Valdimir Putin and saw right through his soul.
This, of course, is the same soul that had been darkened by years
of loyal service in the KGB and that would subsequently be shaded further
by the widespread imprisonment of political opponents, the suppression of
non-governmental organizations, a brutal clampdown on nationalist
movements in the Caucasus and menacing behaviour towards nascent
democracies in Ukraine and Georgia.
But no matter, Russia was a big important country, and although
France and Germany were to be respectively punished and ignored for their
unhelpful opposition to the Iraq War, in Condoleezza Rices famous dictum,
Russia was immediately forgiven.
Duly absolved, however, Moscow was merely emboldened in the
pursuit of its own authoritarian, reactionary agenda. It stepped up its
bullying of Ukraine and fomented further unrest in Georgia; it sought to
impose a stranglehold on European energy supplies and declined to
cooperate in serious efforts to defuse Irans nuclear programme. At almost
all its tangents Russias foreign policy seemed to be designed to impede the
interests of America and its European allies.
Nor did the increasingly awkward embrace of the Russian bear sit
all that well with President Bushs pledge in his second inaugural address to
work to eliminate tyranny in our world.
Russias intensifying defiance and Americas escalating
embarrassment, the unrequited affection Washington has for Moscow is still
to be consummated this summer when Mr Putin hosts the G8 summit in St
Petersburg in July. It will be quite a moment the leaders of the worlds
seven great developed democracies for the first time gathering as the coequal guests of a Government that is neither great nor especially
developed, nor in most recognizable senses a democracy.
In this troubling back-story of craven capitulation it was something
of a shock last week when Dead-eye Dick Cheney took his marksmans
skills into the Russian arena and took aim with unwonted accuracy at
the true nature of Mr Putins regime.
But theres less to all this than meets the eye: there was something
rather suspiciously choreographed about the Cheney assault and the Putin

208

parry. It looks more like a rather awkward shift in the form of US foreign
policy without much real change in the substance.
Mr Bush has been under mounting pressure at home and from allies
in Eastern Europe to show a little more spine towards Russia This steadily
building unease about Americas embrace of Mr Putin has finally seeped into
the Administrations consciousness and prompted an intense debate about
how the US should moderate its enthusiasm, especially given the
unpleasant symbolism of Mr Bushs imminent pilgrimage to St
Petersburg.
Ramzy Baroud hoped that prevalent circumstances could result in
restoration of balance of power. Thanks to other factors precisely
Bushs low ratings at home and his embattled military in Iraq Iran is
finding itself in a much more comfortable position than Iraq under
Saddam Hussein prior to the US invasion in March 2003.
Bush Administration and the pro-war clique in the Congress and
they are many seem equally enthusiastic at the thought of another Middle
East showdown, and Tehran is the new destination. Once again, its neither
respect for the law since Irans nuclear enrichment is not in violation of its
commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty nor democracy for Iran
is much closer to an actual democratic system than many of the US
favoured, yet corrupt and authoritative allies nor human rights since
the US, as the effective ruler of Iraq is the regions top human rights violator
that stimulate such enthusiasm. Rather, its realpolitik.
While Iran is no match for an empire, it also understands that it
holds great leverage through its significant influence over Iraqs Shiite
population and their representatives The Shiite leaderships are yet to
outwardly demand an American withdrawal, and for strategic reasons, are
yet to join the flaring insurgency. Using its influence in Iraq, Iran could
significantly alter the equation, a decision that would unlikely suit the US
long-term interests in occupied Iraq. Iran could do more in the context of
flow of oil from the region.
All these outcomes exclude the likelihood that the US military is
in fact capable of leading a ground war or maintaining a long-term
occupation of a country several times the size of Iraq, which has not been
weakened by years of debilitating sanctions.
As optimistic as it may sound, one can, to an extent, speak of a
balance of power. Wherever such balance can be struck, realpolitik and its

209

associated games can also be found in profusion. While the US wishes to

maintain the posture of the uncompromising, hard-headed party, mulling its
many military options, Iran is calling the bluff, too confidently speaking its
various options, notwithstanding military ones.

CONCLUSIONS
Wests prejudices and bias against Islamic countries are established
facts; therefore, any attempt to draw inferences in this context amounts to
wasting time. The reality is much bitter; they hate anything and everything
which, in any way, can be called Islamic.
After all, it is the feeling of hatred which caused the start of the
ongoing Crusades. Even simple bias or double standards are not the reasons
good enough to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Thus, nourishing
slightest expectation of fair play by the victims from aggressors is a folly.
The Crusaders hesitation in resorting to any of the military options
has been caused, apart from other reasons, by the fact that Iran is not Iraq.
Iraqs defence forces were almost completely destroyed in Gulf War. Further
destruction, particularly of its air defence system, was carried out during
aggressive imposition of the no-fly zone. Iraqs economy was damaged by
decade-long sanctions. On the contrary, Iran has everything intact.
Imposition of economic sanctions, the second best option, has been
undermined by the mistake committed by the Crusaders. Under intoxicating
influence of its military might, America kept drifting away from the stated
aim of its holy war, while disregarding repeated advice to eradicate the
menace by addressing the root causes of militancy.
Invasion of Iraq was a major shift from the stated aim of the war.
America invaded and occupied Iraq exercising the self-claimed right of
regime change and inherent arrogance demonstrated in the form of
unilateralism. When Bush and his neocons saw that the world could do
nothing more than grumbling against their unilateralism, they digressed
further by enlarging the scope of the war on fabricated pretexts.
Gradually, they became too vocal about their malafide intentions
about Central Asian States and oil-rich Caspian region. This alienated Russia
in particular and China in general. The birth of second Cold War was an
obvious outcome. Iran, as a gynecologist, handled the delivery.

210

America also went wrong in assuming that an empire can be built and
retained with sheer military might. It was possible in days of Alexander and
Genghis, but not in 21st century when the world has turned into global
village where interests of various people are now intermingled and one has
to adjust his interests accordingly.
America must learn from 9/11 that it is no more too far away from rest
of the world, as it was during Second World War, not to mention the times of
Columbus. It no more enjoys the safety granted by the two largest oceans of
the world. Therefore, it must learn few tips of peaceful co-existence and
ditch the unilateralism for good.
As regards dialogue, most western analysts have recommended it for
bargaining time, because the prevailing situation does not favour military
action. Their suggestions are completely devoid of sincerity. Ultimate aim
remains the denial of nuclear technology to Iran for the time being and to the
entire Muslim World subsequently.
Some of the wise men have talked of assurance to Iran over its
security concerns. This implied that no Muslim country should have the
capability to address its security concerns at its own. Muslim nations should
either solely depend on presence of the Crusaders on their respective soils,
as Arabs do, or have the satisfaction of feeling secure on assurances.
Pakistans nuclear capability has been mentioned by many analysts as
security concern for Iran. No one has seriously mentioned the threat posed
by the Israels arsenal of nuclear weapons, not only to Iran but to the entire
Islamic World. Strangely, some of them have acknowledged that legalities
do not bother the rogue called Israel.
The rogues can only be deterred by potent retaliatory capability.
Therefore, the right to acquire nuclear capability should be exercised by Iran
as well as by one or two Arab countries. Perhaps, they should have done that
long time back as Pakistan did in the subcontinent. Had it been done, they
would have saved themselves from humiliation at the hands of Zionists and
the Crusaders. This argument also goes in support of Dr Khan who risked
helping the countries desirous of acquiring nuclear capability.
Certainly, the saying of Martin Luther King Jr. applies to Iran: In the
end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our
friends. Tehran might also regret restraining Iraqi Shias from resisting the
occupation of Iraq. But, it will never find some words of gratitude for Sunni
Arabs who have been and continue resisting the Crusaders; and because of

211

which Iran today finds itself in comfortable position against the might of a
superpower. That is the nature of divide in the Ummah.
14th May 2006

BATTLING FOR PEACE

The day, General Sultan termed the statement of Henry Compton as
absurd and irresponsible; Spanta repeated the same allegation by saying
Pakistan can do more against terror. Musharraf tried to push the buck back
by urging the international community for continuous support for peace and
reconstruction in Afghanistan.
Despite Pakistans commitment to war on terror, the Crusaders
remained glaringly biased against Pakistan on various counts including
terrorism, nuclear proliferation and gas pipeline projects. India was
exploiting the situation to maintain status quo on core issue as was evident
from Manmohans keenness to discuss Kashmir with Fazl and pro-Indian
Kashmiri leaders, rather than Pakistan.
Political activity in Pakistan, prompted by Bush and his officials,
culminated into signing of the Charter of Democracy by the two exiled ex-

212

prime ministers. This forced Musharraf to directly indulge in setting right

the affairs of PML-Q and resolving the CM-MQM row.
On 22nd May, Zafarullah Jamali expressed concern over situation in
Baluchistan and urged for solution through peaceful means, but the
government preferred to use money for this purpose. Nothing positive
happened with regard to soft image, except that Supreme Court granted
leave to appeal to an accused in the case of an attempt on Musharrafs life
and out of 13,000 madaris, 10781 were registered.

SERVING CRUSADERS
Battle for Afghan peace continued under pressure of the demands
of doing more:
On 8th May, US gunship helicopters intruded into Pakistan and
attacked workers in Chromites mine in South Waziristan; three
workers were injured and eight went missing. ISPR denied and said
three injured men were arrested near a post while coming from
Afghanistan. One levies personnel was killed in landmine blast and
miscreants fired two missiles at Bajaur Scouts headquarters in Khar.
SDO and his men were kidnapped by gunmen on 9 th May and were
then freed at Gomal Zam Dam site. Next day, security forces arrested
a Tunisian, an Afghan and a Pakistani al-Qaeda suspect near Bannu.
Intelligence agencies after interrogation of three injured men
confirmed that they were mine workers; DG ISPR did not come out
with usual denial statement.
On 11th May, beheaded body of a man accused of spying for the US
was found near border in Bajaur Agency. NATO planned to establish
military liaison office in Pakistan.
Four suspected militants were arrested in Peshawar on 13th May.
Hundreds of Afghan refugees were nabbed in week long drive. Next
day, militants attacked FC fort in Tank and killed a Tehsildar. Eight
rockets were fired on FC fort in Dattakhel.
Eight militants and three paramilitary troops were killed in two
separate incidents in North Waziristan on 16th May. Nine tribesmen
were killed in gunship strike on Miranshah-Razmak Road after an
ambush of a military convoy.

213

 On 17th May, one soldier was killed and four wounded when their
convoy was ambushed in Dattakhel area. Troops retaliated and
captured eight militants. At least four persons, including a tehsildar,
were injured in two bomb blasts in Khar, Mohmand Agency.
Militants dragged Toti Gul, a pro-government tribal chieftain, out of
his car and shot him dead in North Waziristan on 19th May. NATO
clarified to India that its growing military and political ties with
Pakistan were solely restricted to Afghanistan.
On 20th May, two soldiers were killed and one wounded when a
militant threw grenade at a post in Mirali; the attacker was shot dead.
Two days later, a post in South Waziristan came under rocket attack.
On 23rd May, militants denied hand in murder of Toti Gul. Next day,
six Afghans, including three government officials, were held from
Loralai area for entering Pakistan illegally. Six bombs were defused
near Tank. Rocket attack on a post hit power supply tower disrupting
electric supply to most of Waziristan.
A driver of an NGO was wounded in roadside bomb blast near Khar
on 26th May. Militants blew up a health centre near Mirali. Tribesmen
refused to accept compensation after threats from militants. PeshawarJalalabad bus service resumed when five buses left for Afghanistan.
Next day, the political authorities raided a wedding party in Khar area
and arrested 11 Afghans, including the bridegroom.
On 11th May, Spanta sighted Osama in Pakistan; not seen, said
Islamabad. The two neighbouring countries unnecessarily exchanged
accusations, because according to a survey conducted in Dubai 51 percent of
Arabs said their brother was in USA. Four days later, Afghan and Pakistani
foreign ministers decided to meet regularly, so that allegations could be
exchanged in person instead of using media channels.
Meanwhile, despite denial by Taliban, Indian TV channels continued
accusing ISI of killing Indian engineer. On 16th May, Islamabad refuted
reports about Osamas presence in Pakistans northern areas. Three days
later, Kasuri, Information Minister and spokesperson of foreign office
rebuffed Karzai in unison over his allegations of infiltration.
The same day, a British officer in Afghanistan alleged that Taliban
planned attacks from Quetta. He termed Quetta the major headquarters of

214

Taliban. ISPR called the remarks of British officer ludicrous. Britain

distanced itself from remarks about Quetta as headquarters of Taliban.
On 21st May, Spanta alleged that Taliban coordinate attacks from
Pakistan. The leadership of the Taliban and other terror groups are living in
Pakistan. Sherpao and Baluchistan government rejected Kabuls allegations
terming those as baseless.
The accusation-spree was occasionally interrupted with some words
of appreciation. On 9th May, a day after the border violation, NATO praised
Pakistans role in Afghan stability. After taking over the occupation role,
NATO was picking up the American style. On 20 th May, US commended
Pakistans role in locating and eliminating Taliban.
These words were necessary to keep intact the resolve of Pakistani
leaders and military commanders. VCOAS witnessed Pak-US-Afghan
exercises Inspired Gambit which ended near Cherat with burning of acres
of flora and fauna.
Pacification plan in Waziristan failed to make headway. On 14 th May,
Governor and Chief Minister discussed constitution of a representative jirga
to find durable solution to the unrest, but soon after that the Governor
resigned. On 22nd May, Orakzai was appointed as new NWFP Governor
keeping his achievement of taking the war of terror to the tribal areas.
Media and analysts in Pakistan focused on accusations of not doing
more. The News wrote, lets grant that despite these numberless arrests,
Pakistan is somehow lagging. Has the US done enough against terrorism
through efforts to address the root causes of the menace? Or is it actually
fuelling it, by such actions as its missile strike on the village in Bajaur
Agency in January?
Something for which the government of President Musharraf never
gets any credit is its forbearance in the face of repeated US provocations
amid the growing warmth in Pakistans relations with Iran. But the verbal
pinpricks really aggravate when they come from relatively insignificant
people like Richard Boucher and, now, Henry Compton.
In a subsequent editorial, the News commented on Karzais allegation
that Pakistan was training militants and sending them into Afghanistan.
Pakistani intelligence is so effective, according to Mr Karzai that in
addition to training Afghan rebels, terrorists and saboteurs it can also send
them across the border without trouble. What are the Afghan forces doing
against this, just standing by? Meanwhile, its surprising that the Americans

215

occupying Afghanistan, global leaders of the war against terror, are

themselves helpless against the Talibans onslaught It couldnt be sheer
coincidence that these baseless charges against Pakistan are growing in
shrillness as Pakistans relations with Iran become closer.
Mumtaz Riaz from Thana Malkand Agency vented his anger by
writing that Karzai has said several times in Pashto programmes on Radio
Kabul that Mullah Omar is his brother! Why then is he blaming Pakistan?
His relatives are still living in Pakistan and are safer than he is in
Afghanistan. If he is true to his claim, he should immediately recall his
brother and other relatives from Pakistan.
Imtiaz Gul observed that Pakistan seems to be in a tight spot in
Afghanistan. Officials as well as common Afghans fail to distinguish
between what individual pro-Taliban elements are doing in the border
regions and what the Pakistani government is doing to stem the flow and
activities of these militants Officials simply refuse to believe that under
international pressure and out of expedience, the Pakistani government finds
itself in a difficult position and has had to change the direction of its
foreign policy. Any act of subversion is simply blamed on ISI and the
Pakistan Army.
The onus in this situation perhaps lies more on the Afghan
leadership than on Pakistan; the anti-Pakistan rhetoric has to give way to
friendly, accommodating and forward-looking gestures, said a European
development consultant, currently working on security issues. Blaming
internal problems and their cause on external factors will not help in the
reconstruction, he opined.
M B Naqvi was of the view that Pakistan was doing a thankless job of
promoting US interests. Consider the role the US requires Pakistan to play
in Afghanistan, and by extension in most of the regions around, as a nonNATO ad hoc ally. Being a non-NATO ally means that while Pakistan will
strive to achieve US security objectives, the US will have no reciprocal
obligations. It means Pakistan implementing American and NATO designs.
What are these designs? Superficially, it is fighting terrorism, held up as an
international threat to western capitalist democracies. But it will help
promote what America calls democracy. however, considering the American
conduct in areas around Afghanistan, Iraq or what the US may do vi-a-vis
Iran, it would not be tackling terrorists as much as it would be
promoting American strategic interests.

216

Shireen M Mazari wrote about British High Commissioners

clarification that the statements of British officials did not represent official
policy. Come now Mr Grant, are you trying to tell us that a British army
officer does not come under civilian control and can make political
accusations against a foreign country without clearance from any senior
civilian authority? That does not wash especially when we hear so much
about British democracy and civilian control over the military; and, what of
the comments of the unnamed British diplomat in Islamabad? Was he also
going his way without reflecting his governments perspective? Equally
important, High Commissioner Grants comments were strictly for the
Pakistani media and were nowhere to be seen in the Guardian, where the
attempted clarification should have been sent in the first place.
The rather open duplicity of the US and Britain towards Pakistan
is reaching ridiculous levels, undoubtedly on the assumption that anything
can be dished out to the Pakistanis because they are gullible enough not to
question the glaring absurdities. That can be the only reason for these
contradictory statements coming from the US and Britain.
Not that such accusations help either the Afghan cause or the US-led
war against terrorism. Because of the purely military focus of the war on
terror, with little regard to root causes, space denial to the terrorists has not
been achieved. She ended up with her often repeated advice: It is time for
us in Pakistan to stop taking any more nonsense from our allies.
Farhatullah Babar observed, until now the US and Afghanistan have
been blaming Pakistan for not putting its act together in respect of Kabul.
Now the international community seems to have joined the chorus. The
United Kingdom has protested that Pakistan was not doing enough with
former EU commissioner for external affairs Lord Chris Patten sharply
critical of Islamabads Afghan policy.
Most of such harsh criticism of Pakistan may be unfounded, based on
misunderstandings and even bias but perceptions often matter more than
the reality. It bodes ill for Pakistan in international public opinion is so
heavily tilted and biased against Islamabad.
What should the Pakistan government do then if it really believes that
peace in Afghanistan is essential for our own security? This can be done
by bringing the Afghan policy into the open and into the public domain
and discuss it in parliament. Presently neither the foreign office nor the
parliament is involved in making the Afghan policy that appears to be
prepared in the semi lit corridors of the security establishment.
217

The News urged revision of Pak-US ties. It couldnt be sheer

coincidence that the Pakistani prime minister arrived in Tripoli on Thursday
during the presence of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Irans
increasingly close ally, with whom he had meeting. This balance is all very
well. But its time for Pakistan to review the strategic partnership with
the United States. The US-India nuclear deal in February is proof that the
partnership is a faade that only benefits the Americans.
The daily newspaper also commented on the situation within
Waziristan. The events are a statement to the influence wielded by the
militants that as long as they so desired, peace held in the troubled agency.
Given that the official policy at smoking or flushing out militants has
so far yielded little results other than those reflected on the death roll,
should we then infer that a more reasonable approach to the problem would
be the one that places dialogue above the noise produced by the gun?
Asad Munir discussed various elements of militancy in Waziristan.
There are four different elements involved in the current crisis and each
requires to be tackled differently. It is important to identify these elements so
that different courses of action are formulated to deal with each element.
He referred to war in Afghanistan since 1979, and said, the first
element is the foreigners. After the Soviet withdrawal they fought along
Taliban and continue doing so after the US-led invasion. All these
foreigners have one thing in common; they are all wanted by the
governments of their respective countries. Since they have nowhere else to
go they have no option but to fight it out for their own survival.
The second element is the Afghans residing in Waziristan. They
move across the border and stay in different parts of NWFP, FATA and
Baluchistan during the winter season. Some of the 20 percent still left in
Waziristan, act as facilitators for the Taliban and other Afghan militants
who cross over to tribal areas.
The third element is the local Taliban The events in Afghanistan
have always affected the tribal areas and these are the product of various
phases of fighting in Afghanistan since 1979. Their strength can be judged
from that since 1998 they have been running a parallel administration
The fourth and the most important element involved in this crisis are
young tribals. They are angry youth who want to fight against the system,
want to wage jihad and are willing to cross the border and fight against the
US and Afghan forces.

218

Theoretically, the above categorization is correct, but all of them are

varieties of the same crop. Three of them are ethnic Pushtoons and the
foreigners, who have been staying there for more than three decades and
have married in local families, identify themselves with Pushtoon tribes. All
of them share their aspirations and are strongly against foreign occupation of
Afghanistan. They also equate Pakistan with America being an ally in the
ongoing Crusades; therefore they do not trust Pakistan government.
The News termed the recent demolition of a government health centre
in North Waziristan as a chilling reminder of the growing Talibanization.
Unfortunately, incidents like this have been happening with disturbing
regularity As the interior minister himself recently admitted in public,
Talibanization has made inroads in Kohat, Dera Ismail Khan and Tank
districts with self-styled defenders of the faith forcing ordinary citizens to
live according to a literal and rigid interpretation of Islam The
governments helplessness or unwillingness to act against these elements,
which is implicit since they seem to have been given a free hand, is the
reason why the intolerance and bigotry has spread beyond FATA.

Prejudices of the Crusaders against Pakistan remained in place. On

th

9 May, FIA team went to Germany to investigate death of Amir Cheema.

Within a week, FIA confirmed that Amir had committed suicide. The team
had recorded statements of some who had witnessed him committing
suicide. The report also included a six-point will of Amir in which he had
said, I would never commit suicide.
There was no word about the conditions in which he was detained,
which must have led him to see no way out except committing suicide.
Meanwhile, Amir Cheemas body arrived in Pakistan and his funeral was
attended by thousands of people from across the country.
Pakistan Embassy in Berlin exonerated itself from not taking any
action, by saying that Amir had not addressed any letter directly to the
Pakistans his excellency in Berlin. So he was allowed to rot in the jail and
meet the logical end for being so negligent.
On 12th May, Opposition in the Senate demanded constitution of a
Senate Commission to meet Dr AQ Khan to find facts about his
deteriorating health and restrictions on his meeting with family members. A
fortnight later, Foreign Office announced that there was nothing more to
share on Khan. Meanwhile, as US and India worked desperately to save
nuclear deal, Kasuri told NA Standing Committee that Pakistan will get civil
nuclear technology from different countries to meet its energy requirements.
219

On 26th May, US lawmakers called for the reopening of AQ Khan File.

We have given Pakistan a get-out-of-jail-free card on the single worst case
of proliferation in the past 50 years, said Gary Ackerman. His case is
considered relevant to the current Iranian and North Korean crises. He might
have supplied Iran with nuclear weapon designs. Some questions whether
the AQ Khan network is truly out of business, asking if its not merely
hibernating. Wed be foolish to rule out that chilling possibility, said Royce.
David Albright, an American nuclear expert, told the hearing that the Khan
case is far from closed. Most of them implicated Pakistan with Irans
nuclear programme.
American pressure had caused caution on IPI gas pipeline project.
On 21 May, Iran sought assurance from Pakistan that it will not sell gas to
India, quoting Algiers-Spain accord. Pakistan did not agree saying once the
gas has been purchased, the seller has nothing to with it.
st

Four days later, Pakistan and Iran agreed to form a joint investment
company to be based in Karachi, to open land route for Pakistani exports
besides reiterating their resolve for early start of IPI gas pipeline project, but
meeting of ministers was postponed for one month.
During Prime Ministers visit to Greece, the two countries agreed to
share information on terrorism. Like all visits, this too ended up with
extraction of an agreement on this issue. America, however, in a gesture of
kindness agreed to release 8 of the 29 Pakistanis held in Guantanamo Bay.
Suicide is a key word for the Crusaders to blame Muslims for all
crimes, even those committed against the Muslims. If Amir committed
suicide, it was certainly due to the harsh treatment meted out to him by those
who detained him. So is the case with suicide bombers.
M B Naqvi commented on Pakistans nuclear programme. A decisive
moment came when the Pakistan president made the premise of virtually
ending the Jihad in Kashmir. Obviously, Pakistans nuclear weapons were of
no help. If the notional benefit of the weapons had to be sacrificed for the
sake of peace, their value gets heavily diluted. The fact is that Pakistans
nuclear weapons are no longer vital for its security. The country could
not win Kashmir through a proxy war and they could not defend Pakistan
against Indias threatened attack without Islamabad having to make certain
concessions.
There is another negative aspect of the nukes: there is Dr AQ Khans
underground bazaar of nuclear contraband. The story has not ended. The
rest of the world is still interested. They all think that Pakistan is vulnerable
220

to various threats from inside. They believe that anti-Musharraf and

extremist elements in Pakistan can get hold of these weapons. At least in the
eyes of the rest of the world, Pakistan is more vulnerable because of these
weapons.
Nuclear weapons were never meant for winning Kashmir. These are
meant to save Pakistan from external harm for which these have proved
useful as India did not go to the war despite mobilizing bulk of its military
resources. As regards making certain concessions, not the weapons but
the man who possessed them should be blamed. Pakistans brave
commando chickened out in front of Indias limping Vajpayee.
The analyst has been arguing against Pakistans nuclear bombs since
long. There was nothing new in his anti-bomb stance, except that this time
he wrote only three days before US lawmakers said that probe against
Khans network was not yet closed, which he now termed as Khans
underground bazaar. The Crusaders have focused on Dr Khan, but he
insisted on roll-back of entire nuclear programme. This cannot be taken as
coincidence. Pakistan is certainly more vulnerable from inside.
Ammara Durrani discussed Americas role in obstructing IPI gas
pipeline project. The case of IPI pipeline politics showed that while the
rhetoric for joining hands had matured, the will and apparatus for even
functional cooperation the minimal requirement for trans-border
enterprise was not firmly in place among countries that stood most to
gain from the cooperation.
After mentioning Indian suspicions, apprehensions, and thoughts
about counter-balance, like Kashmir dispute, Baglihar Dam, and unrest in
Baluchistan, she pointed out the American factor. This year began on an
ominous note because of the rise of the biggest hurdle that the project now
faces the US-Iran nuclear stand-off.
On the surface, the political leaderships of Iran, Pakistan and India
continue to give media sound bytes that would have us believe that the IPI
project is only a matter of some more negotiations and time. But several
realities present a grim picture In this context she mentioned US-India
nuclear deal, implications of slapping economic sanctions on Iran, sacking
of Manishankar Aiyar, failure in settlement inter-government guarantees and
obligations.
Without naming the US, India and Pakistan both deny facing any
external pressure to back out of IPI, saying they will not allow it to come in
the way of their national interests Behind their apparent media-driven
221

confidence, however, it appears that the two South Asian neighbours are
finding it difficult to carry on business as originally intended, because the
US is stepping up its efforts to back the Central Asian energy route as a more
acceptable option for India Compared to the advances that have already
been made in pursuit of IPI pipeline, TAP project may take quite a long
while before any good comes out of it.
It is difficult to predict the outcome of IPI project even if the odds
against it look daunting. American pressure notwithstanding, the three actors
are putting up an independent front, ostensibly safeguarding their economic
interests. Russian and Chinese stakes in the energy game also offer them an
opportunity to push through with their plans, albeit slowly.
It is clear that Washington wants to use local conflicts to establish
its influence in the region. Through the pressure and offering diverging
incentives to each player, it is perpetuating these conflicts which would
ultimately prevent efforts at regional economic cooperation in the form of
projects like IPI gas pipeline.
Chris Cork discussed the previously reported issue and opined that
Pakistan was fading, not failing. Pakistan has areas of systemic failure
that date back to Partition and even before that and are not susceptible to
quick political fixes; as well as a selection of debilitating long-term chronic
failures by successive governments to address the core issues of population
control and education. Taken together, the failure of democracymight be
indicators of failed statehood.
Ironically, the current government for all its lack of democratic
functionality at anything but a cosmetic level is doing and achieving more in
some key areas than any perhaps all of its predecessors. Unfortunately
the present government is also a relatively benign military dictatorship,
with a decent democratic hijab covering the fist beneath; and no
dictatorship benign or not is ever going to come up to scratch against a
measuring stick made in the West like the Failed States Index, for
instance.
M S Hasan from Karachi wrote, without getting into the motive of
this outfit, the merits of the related elements and the parameters used for
such a determination by a third party, we Pakistanis, the real stakeholders,
need to dispassionately, objectively and realistically evaluate ourselves
and the state of the Pakistani federation in this context.
There are aspects which need to be critically analyzed for a realistic
assessment of Pakistan. They are: sustainability of democracy, quality of
222

political leadership, strength of national economy, effectiveness of

governance and the writ of the state, education and quality of human
resources, public services, quality of life and opportunities, social values,
respect for individuals human rights, gender and minority equality,
technological advancements, pace of industrialization, energy security and
food autarky Granting that there are pockets of resilience and positive
indicators as blips of hope and progress, Pakistan continues to be a weak
state on most of the above counts.
Ahmad Mushtaq Zaidan rejected the failed state assumptions. For
someone who is acquainted with the Pakistani nation closely, it is simply
incredible and illogical to believe the US assessment about this nation which
has fared remarkably well through thick and thin of history, and has
shown great potential to develop and has displayed a lot of resilience against
the toughest of misfortunes.
He argued, the American officials and think tanks must evaluate
the devastations of the US intervention syndrome and the success of those
states and countries where Washington has committed military interventions.
In fact, the states that suffered from US interventions later turned out to be
failed states, and that too according to US standards. This historical fact is
well reflected in a book titled Overstretched Empire which noted that 35
countries where American forces intervened have now become failed states
during the last three decades.
Sana Farooq observed, such a report has the apparent motive to
spread despair amongst the Pakistanis and retard the growing foreign
investment in Pakistan. Our embassy in Washington should probe the matter
in all respects with special reference to any Indian involvement.

PEACE PROCESS
Only outcome of the composite dialogue was that on 26th May the
two countries agreed on joint survey of Sir Creek. The surveys carried out
previously, perhaps, had become redundant with the passage of time. As
consequence of the failure of bilateral dialogue, Pakistan and India were
summoned by World Bank for meeting in Geneva over Baglihar dispute.
In the context of confidence building measures, India freed six
Pakistanis, including four teenagers on 17th May. A week later India decided
to release 59 Pakistani fishermen. SMEs of India and Pakistan held two-day
meeting in Islamabad to boost trade.
223

Negative steps and statements outpaced the confidence building

measures. On 9th May, Mukherjees said as per our information 59 training
camps are still functioning in Pakistan. He threatened that if the graph of
militancy-related violence goes up, we may be forced to enhance the
numerical presence of troops.
Indian Navy sought three more stealth Russian frigates. On 13th May,
the sea version of the pilot-less aircraft Lakshya was successfully tested in
Bay of Bengal. Manmohan vowed to switch over to remote-controlled
technology weapons. Indian Army conducted largest ever exercises in
Punjab and Rajasthan to validate the Armys new operational doctrine
under nuclear, biological and chemical weapons environment. Similar
exercises were conducted last year as well.
Pakistan rejected Indian idea on mutually benefiting visits of
respective army chiefs. On 18th May, the cultural interaction between the two
neighbours embarrassed Musharraf and compelled him to blacklist Indian
actor Feroz Khan, who under the influence of liquor said some harsh words
about Pakistan.
Meanwhile, perpetration of state terrorism in IHK continued.
Following actions and retaliations were reported:
On 8th May, several people were injured in protests against sex
scandal. Next day, Indian forces killed two suspected freedom fighters
in separate clashes and seized arms cache. Troops smashed a carbomb factory, believed to be preparing bombs for blasts in Srinagar
during Singhs visit on May 25.
Indian troops killed two suspected militants in Poonch area on 10 th
May and one policeman and a civilian were killed by gunmen in
Doda. In two other gun battles in Rajouri and Doda, a soldier and two
militants were killed.
On 11th May, militants shot dead two policemen in Srinagar. CBI team
arrived in Srinagar to probe prostitution scandal. Gilani said incidents
of state terrorism were on the rise.
Thousands of people protested in Handwara on 14 th May against
molestation of a woman by Indian troops. Next day, four abducted
civilians were killed in Baramulla.
Four suspected freedom fighters were killed on 16 th May in a gun
battle in a remote village.
224

 On 21st May, eight people, including two militants, were killed and 20
wounded in gunfight when militants stormed rally of Congress Party
in Srinagar.
Twenty-two BSF troops were wounded in suicide attack in Srinagar
on 23rd May. Indian Army sealed off Srinagar for PMs visit.
At least 12 civilians, 3 policemen and 5 soldiers were injured in four
grenade attacks in Srinagar as Singh arrived in IHK on 24 th May.
Gilani placed under house arrest. AI took serious note of human
violations. Singh chaired a meeting of military commanders, police
and government officials to review security in the region.
On 27th May, thousands of people protested and locked up a soldier
alleging that he had raped a young girl returning home from school in
village near Srinagar.
Manmohans interaction with Kashmiri leaders was the only
important event during the last three weeks. On 23rd May pro-India NC
threatened to stay away from talks, if Manmohan meets with APHC. APHC
and UJC called for strike on the days of Singhs visit, i.e. 24th and 25th May.
Indian Prime Minister announced that a group would be set up to
examine Kashmirs special autonomous status under the constitution in a bid
to bring peace in Held Kashmir. Mirwaiz said Manmohans remark that
Kashmir is internal problem of India has hurt Kashmiris. Various freedom
fighter groups termed the two-day roundtable conference as waste of time.
Because India has been dragging feet on resolution of Kashmir
dispute and that it has been causing division within Kashmiris and then
encouraging all the parties, old and new, to come out with proposals for
solution; now there are so many proposal/options that agreement on anyone
of those seems impossible. Pakistani rulers and experts, because of their
extraordinary courage and intellect have produced about a dozen options,
while Indians, badly lacking in both, stuck dearly to ATTOT ANG option.
This prompted Muhammad Badar Alam to write, the fact doesnt help
that there have always been multiple proposals doing the rounds for the
resolution of conflict in and over Kashmir. Someone still needs to come
with the most acceptable, most practicable and most enduring plan to resolve
the issue. The various roadmaps being put forward by different parties to
the conflict suffer from one fatal flaw: They fail to arouse the interest of and

225

generated respect from their detractors. Instead of trying to improve upon

the others plan, everyone so far prefers to offer one of their own.
To get a sense of who is saying what, pick up any news commentary
on the issue and you will find a whole range of options from selfgovernance and autonomy to self-determination and independence. The fine
text between these broad categories is replete with references to
demilitarization, infiltration, softening of borders, respect for human rights,
release of political prisoners, and ending the constitutional ambiguities that
the two parts of Kashmir have with respect to their relationship with central
governments in India and Pakistan. The parties to the conflict have too much
on the table to clearly talk to each other. This amply speaks of the success
of Indian strategy on the core issue.
M Ismail Khan agreed with Badar Alam. Looking at the dialogue
process up to this point, one key bone of contention has been the question
of who should represent the people. Who should speak for such a diverse
public opinion, which runs across five or seven distinct regions and at least
three distinct administrative components that of Indian held Jammu &
Kashmir, and Pakistan administered Azad Kashmir, and Gilgit Baltistan (or
the Northern Areas). Should it be elected members of the current legislatures
in these three administrative entities? But were they elected with a mandate
to discuss the Kashmir dispute; it is another matter if they have the capacity
and vision to do so. Let us then turn to the Hurriyat Conference, do they
represent the entire state. Hurriyat does have a good following in the Valley
and partly in Azad Kashmir but it is non-existent in Jammu, Ladakh and
Gilgit/Baltistan. What else are the options? Should people look towards Dr
Karan Singh as the male heir of Maharaja Hari Singh? Do jihadi
organizations represent the will of the people? Perhaps they too represent a
sentiment, but unfortunately have a language problem.
The News wrote on Singhs remarks about special status to
Kashmir. He needs to explain how the new status will be dissimilar from
the old one if the territory is still going to be within the Indian union. The
only caveat in this and a major one at that is that all the affected parties
have to be taken along in this, and that includes not only the APHC but also
the militants. Also, India needs to be clear about sensitive issues like crossborder infiltration because statements by senior Indian functionaries at
different times seem to contradict each other and only end up vitiating the
atmosphere needed for the establishment of a permanent peace.

226

Ever since the first public indications were made in early April
regarding the possibility that Pakistan and India may reach an agreement on
Siachin, the Indian armed forces have quite uncharacteristically taken a
public position on the matter. It is also not in accordance with the Indian
constitution. This is exceptionally surprising, given the strong and
commendable tradition of the Indian army to stay clear of politics and public
diplomacy, observed Nasim Zehra.
The News wrote, with a tenth round of secretary-level talks on demilitarization of Siachen again ending in deadlock, one wonders whether
there will ever be any real progress on the issue in the foreseeable future.
Held in New Delhi, the talks are said to have taken place in a very cordial
atmosphere with the Pakistani defence secretary being quoted as saying that
there is a keen desire on both sides to move forward with the peace
process, That is all well and good and the keenness on both sides to get on
with the peace process has been reiterated several times in the past as well.
The editor wanted to see the manifestation of the keenness.
Gulf News was of the view that the Indian Army has told Singh that
once Indian troops withdraw; there is very little likelihood of reclaiming the
Himalayan range. Singh, being blamed for all manner of ills in Delhi at the
moment, clearly does not want to add Siachen to his list of woes If Singh
was even a tenth of the politician that his predecessor Atal Bihari
Vajpayee was, Siachen would have been a done deal. Together, India and
Pakistan could have disengaged to mutually agreed positions.
The News wrote on the outcome recent talks on Sir Creek. Using
the 1914 green line as a marker, Pakistan has consistently claimed
ownership over the entire 60-mile-long Sir Creek estuary which separates
the province of Sindh from the Indian state of Gujrat. New Delhi, for its part,
has insisted on mid-channel delineation, as shown on a later map. This
assertion has been long rejected by Islamabad on the grounds that such
boundaries are applicable only to navigable channels which, according to the
Pakistan view, Sir Creek is not.
Indications of significant movement on the dispute first surfaced
during the September 2004 visit to India by Pakistans foreign minister, and
the progress achieved since then appears to have been cemented by the
landmark joint statement issued on Friday. Given the pitfalls that the two
countries have encountered on the rocky road to peace, it can only be hoped
that this promising start does not prove to be yet another case of one step
forward and two steps back.
227

Pakistan has started feeling the pinch of people to people

contacts. On 16th May, an issue was raised by Prof Khurshid on a point of
order in the Senate over the reported remarks of Pakistani counselor in
Jeddah during Pak-India Mushaira. The official said that if Berlin Wall can
fall then why Pakistan and India cannot become one. In the Mushaira,
one of the Indian poets read a poem in which he poked fun at the creation of
Pakistan and the Quaid-e-Azam. Professor urged the government to recall
the diplomat.
Musharraf blacklisted Indian actor Feroz Khan, who made
offending remarks when he was drunk at a gala ceremony in Lahore. I
come from a great country, which is a great democracy and secular state.
The greatest example of this is that we have a Muslim president and a Sikh
prime minister. Here in Pakistan you are majority Muslims and Muslim is
killing Muslim. There was nothing wrong with his statement which
described the ground realities. The guest at least accepted the entities of two
states, contrary to the Pakistani official who negated the creation of Pakistan.
When Fakhar-e-Alam tried to push with the proceedings and greeted
another top star Kabir Bedi as the emperor and requested him to rise, Feroz
took the mike and said, the emperor never rises. You kneel before this
emperor. Again there was nothing wrong with his remarks.
The agencies reported the incident to the president, who reacted by
blacklisting the guest; what a shame. There were quite a few wrong things
which were not reported or mentioned with due emphasis. The hosts in
Islamic Republic of Pakistan arranged the wine for the guest so lavishly that
he forgot about diplomacy and started talking straight. He paid the price,
but what about the generous hosts?
Obviously, Musharraf does not want and cannot punish the hosts,
because it is he who started this TAMASHA, by first allowing screening of
Indian films in Pakistan, after having been impressed by the beauty of
Skaikhos Anarkali, and then encouraged cultural contacts in which only
actors, dancers and singers are considered true ambassadors of culture. Thus,
he might be considering the hosts for some award on 14 th August for their
excellent contribution towards curbing Islamic fundamentalism and
making significant contribution towards his philosophy of enlightened
moderation. Whatever he might do, this venture has not served his cause
of acquiring soft image, as he himself ran short of tolerance.
Kanak Mani Dixit talked of demolishing the Berlin Wall on the
Subcontinent. With the receding memories of partition, with the India228

Pakistan rapprochement despite the vicissitudes, it is time for the chief

ministers in Amritsar, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Karachi and Lahore to
respectfully inform Islamabad and New Delhi for their intention to meet to
discuss loosening the bilateral frontier.
Let the chief ministers do what is good for their people. Only then
will we see the end of the caricature that is the lowering-the-flag ceremony
at the Wagah-Atari border point, where army men on each side stomp their
boots and provide crass examples of what is said to be the national attitude,
which we know is not so. It is time that those lights at the border are
switched off.

DEMOCRACY
The occasional mention of democracy by US officials, Musharrafs
remarks about decline of his popularity, exiled leaders renewed desire to
return, and speculations about possibility of elections before schedule, have
fueled the fire of political activity in Pakistan. Shujaat thanked Musharraf
for reposing confidence in him, but PML-Q forward bloc members felt
humiliated after Musharraf did not meet them after having kept them waiting
for hours despite prior confirmation.
Information Minister claimed that Charter of Democracy was
nothing but a drama. On 14th May Nawaz and Benazir signed Charter of
Democracy. Both vowed to return home and claimed Washingtons support
for Musharraf would be counter-productive. Fazl said that MMA would
contest elections with or without Musharraf.
Musharraf played down Benazir-Nawaz accord and indicated that
present assemblies could re-elect him. A day later, Richard Boucher told the
House International Relations Committee Chairman, James Leach that
Musharraf was taking Pakistan in the direction of free and fair general
elections in 2007.
Lawyers opposed Musharrafs re-election idea. Imran ruled out free
and fair polls under Musharraf and subsequently backed Charter of
Democracy. Dissenters in PML-Q refused to succumb to pressure as none of
their grievances were addressed.
On 20th May, Musharraf termed signatories of the Charter of
Democracy as enemies of democracy. Six days later, Qazi subscribed to the
Charter of Democracy with reservations. There is no mention of ending the

229

US intervention, the rising poverty and unemployment in Pakistan. But,

Mian-Bibi razi tou kia karey ga Qazi.
On 27th May, intervention by Musharraf Bhai and invisible efforts (of
Altaf Bhai) helped in resolving the differences between Chief Minister of
Sindh and MQM, marking the end, at least for the time being, to nine-day
row. The same day, Sher Afgan claimed that Benazir was in direct contact
with Musharraf.

Charter of Democracy stole the show in political MAILA during

the period. Prior to the signing of the charter, Burhanuddin Hasan asked few
questions for its authors. If by any chance these two leaders succeed in
forging an alliance, would Mian Nawaz Sharif admit that all the cases of
corruption filed by him against Ms Bhutto were false and politically
motivated? Would he also take back his allegation against Ms Bhutto that
she was a security risk? Would Ms Bhutto agree to sit on the opposition
benches should Nawaz Sharif wins the election? Or would she refuse to
accept the election results and launch a campaign against him as she did on
the two previous occasions? They must answer these questions before they
sign what they call the Charter of Democracy.
Baseer Navid said, Bhutto and Sharif are very hungry for power,
and looking at their shared history, they will do anything to achieve it. If
they do, then Pakistan will again be held hostage by both the army and a
psedu-democracy.
A day after the signing of Charter of Democracy, Imtiaz Alam
enumerated its salient features:
Emphasizes the hegemony of the people through their elected
representatives over the civil and military establishments.
Proposes to dispense with the National Security Council and
envisages strengthening of the Cabinet Defence Committee.
Authorizes the elected prime minister to make appointments of the
bosses of the armed forces and brings the intelligence services under
his/her control.
Envisages strengthening the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committees
bringing the defence budget under the scrutiny of the parliament.
Spells out bringing the Command and Control System under the
Defence Committee.

230

 Rejects the LFO and the 17th Amendment, less joint electorate,
representation of women and minorities, and age limit of voters.
Proposes a foolproof bipartisan mechanism for the appointment of
judges of the higher judiciary.
Proposes a Federal Constitutional Court while dispensing with all
special courts but did not mention Federal Shariat Court.
It promises National Finance Commission award, dispense with the
concurrent list, greater provincial autonomy, and devolution of
power.
Also proposes a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to probe
cases of victimization.
It proposes appointment of a bipartisan accountability commission
for all.
The parties have pledged not to join military juntas and not to
destabilize any government.
They have prohibited floor-crossing, pledged inner party democracy,
and creation of powerful and independent election commission.
It pledges not to join the military government and any adjustment
with the current military ruler.
Also pledges peaceful relations with India and Afghanistan without
prejudice to the positions on the outstanding disputes.
It strongly condemns terrorism and militancy as byproducts of
military dictatorships and vows to confront them vigorously.
Imtiaz Alam was of the view that the charter provides, in both
principle and functionality, a more consistent democratic platform that
binds the two major parties in a bipartisan framework to a democratic,
federal, modern and progressive Pakistan. Stressing the need for a new
direction, different from a militaristic and a regimental approach of the
Bonapartist regimes, it commits to the two parties to an economically
sustainable, socially progressive, politically democratic and pluralist,
federally cooperative, ideologically tolerant, internationally respectable and
regionally peaceful basis.
He visualized three scenarios around the next general elections.
First, the opposition parties jointly build public opinion and a mass
231

movement against the military rule and force General Musharraf to abdicate
power to allow fair elections.
Second, the combined opposition builds pressure strong enough to
force the military government to hold free and fair elections and, in turn,
provides General Musharraf with an exit door in transition from military to
civilian rule Third, General Musharraf pushes his plan of bringing the
kings party into power through a controversial election that will lead to
either a boycott of the election or rejection of results. This scenario is the
most likely.
Something that pleases me no end is the affirmation in the charter
that the defence budget will be discussed and approved in the
parliament. This has been a sacred cow so far. The militarys refusal to put
itself up the public scrutiny undermines the sovereignty of the elected
institutions. Our journey towards a civilized state would be incomplete
without a public debate about our defence needs and priorities. The people
must approve how their money is spent and this should include defence. The
charter upholds this principle, wrote Shafqat Mahmood.
Mir Jamilur Rahman said, the charter is more of a joint election
manifesto of the PPP and the PML-N, than an expression of some electoral
alliance. It is political contract seeking good governance and an end to
military supremacy over civil society. Having witnessed, or suffered,
military coups detat the two former prime ministers have reached the
conclusion that military dictatorship and the nation cannot coexist.
There is no threat of agitation or election boycott in the charter. It is
evident that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif want to promote democracy
in the country through peaceful means. They seem to have learned their
lesson and are expected to adhere to the Charter of Democracy in letter
and spirit.
Rahimullah Yusufzai had similar views. The 36-point charter is a
profound document capable of making Pakistan a truly democratic country.
Almost all the ills plaguing democracy in the country have been
identified and measures suggested to set things right However, drawing
up a charter of democracy with all the nice things is only one part of the
exercise. Getting it implemented and making it work is the other, tougher
part and is fraught with risks.
Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif deserve another chance. One
would like to believe that they have reformed. The Charter of Democracy
with its plethora of pious intentions is one indication of the change that they
232

have undergone. Those willing to forgive them should look at the profound
document that they have produced and not at the two authors.
Masooda Bano had some words of advice for better half of the
political contract. Benazir Bhutto has to remember that her performance in
her last two tenures as the prime minister has seriously damaged the
democratic process in the country. So many hopes attached to her because of
her fathers legacy, her age, and exposure, when she first became the prime
minister but today many of the same people who cheered her success dread
her return. Nawaz Sharif on the other hand has in fact matured; he has
progressed much from where he started. The two ex-premiers should,
however, remember that they are still highly distrusted by majority of the
population.
Iqbal Mustafa had some doubts. In a parliamentary form of
government, there is a voluntary distinction between the executives and the
legislators, which is missing in our system. The charter makes no mention
of it. So, I assume we can expect legislators as executives in disguise as
before.
More than that, there is no reference to the collusion of financial and
political power that continues to thrive under the system. Will free and fair
elections promised in the charter allow seats to be lucrative investments to
be cashed during the tenure of assemblies? There is no whisper of self
discipline within the two popular parties. Individuals will remain to
dominate as lifetime heads of parties because God has been miserly in
bestowing Pakistan with leadership qualities?
Despite all these holes in the charter, I am happy with it. It breaks
the fifty-year-old status quo. It has three elements that provide fresh hope.
It rests on public confession of past mistakes, hence setting a healthy
tradition. It challenges the unbridled power of the military establishment in
open and vocal terms. And it spells out means to develop a spirit of tolerance
and accommodation in politics, in place of terminal conflicts. For all its
warts, the sum is larger than the parts of the charter. I have always held that
seeking one-time perfection is nave. I am ready to believe in this charter as
a first step towards redemption of democracy in the country.
The reaction to the Charter of Democracy was divided into three
categories by BA Malik from Islamabad. One side considers the new-found
harmony between Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif a cornerstone of national
reconciliation. The other considers it as the beginning of another round
of confrontation. The pro-charter intellectuals focus their attention on the
233

principles contained in the document. The anti-charter ones focus on

personalities rather than principles. After taking into account these
conflicting assessments of the charter of democracy I am driven to the
inevitable conclusion that reason and history are on the side of those
supporting the charter. Those who are against it appear to be on the wrong
side of both reason and history. While Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif have learnt
their lessons, the army ruler and his servile surrogates apparently have no
appetite to learn anything from the past.
There is third category of writers who while trying to maintain a
semblance of balance and objectivity grudgingly approves the charter
after finding some faults in it. We are living in interesting times. The charter
has drawn a clear line between the future and the past. Where we want to
take the country from here depends on which side of the charter of
democracy we choose to stand.
The reaction of rulers was viewed critically. The News wrote,
attack by president Musharraf on the Charter of Democracy signed in
London on Sunday was an expected reaction to a document targeting his
military dictatorship, which has pushed our beloved country to the brink of
a total disaster The charter is less an expression of concern for popular
welfare and more of self-interest, an attempt to secure their own future and
re-enter the power corridors, according to him. He also insisted once again
that the two former prime ministers had no political future.
The General could be mistaken in his insistence that the two
leaders wouldnt deliver if they returned to power. However, the rhetoric
contained in the 36-point document does not make clear exactly how they
would bring about the sweeping changes they have pledged. Its good the
charter has come, but its the implementation that will ultimately matter.
Kamran Shafi, in his peculiar style, analyzed the remarks of
Musharraf and other government officials on the Charter of Democracy. If it
is true that Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto are hated by the people of
Pakistan, why doesnt the military government invite them back to the
country, hold a free and fair election under a totally independent election
commission and let the people reject them and their thieving ways?
I mean it is not as if they are full Generals of the Pakistan Army and
they will mount a coup and grab power. It is not as if they will march into
the Prime Ministers House and take over the country by force of arms.
They will have to face an election, and only if elected by the majority of
the people of Pakistan come into power. So what is the problem?
234

The fact that the Generals regime foolishly pushed Nawaz and
Benazir to the wall so hard that they had to fight back; the fact that the
country has been so mismanaged that inflation will soon hit double figures;
the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing at an alarming
rate; the fact that the countrys infrastructure is fast falling apart; the fact that
there simply isnt any law what to speak of order; the fact that the General is
therefore vulnerable, have all contributed to the signing of the Charter of
Democracy between once bitter political rivals.
What remains to be seen is whether the two will return to the country
before the elections, come what may. If they dont, they will have signed
their parties demise, and therefore of their own futures. If they do, the
General is in big trouble, despite what Assistant Secretary of State Richard
Boucher said in his support just yesterday.
Khusro Mumtaz said, the biggest failure of the General six years
into his rule may be the fact that the previously discredited Nawaz Sharif
and Benazir Bhutto have become viable political contenders again. The
General, it should be forgotten, had much popular support when he first
came to power in 1999. His professed aim of cleaning up the system and
throwing out the rogues and the corrupt won much favour within the
country. But (apart from Benazir and Nawaz and a few other names) what
we have in 2006 are pretty much the same scoundrels wandering the
corridors of power that had initially been identified as willful loan defaulters
and placed on NAB and Exit Control lists.
Shakir Husain said the same, whats most upsetting is the fact that
things have gotten to such a point that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are
being positioned as the people who can save things from getting worse.
Imagine BB and Sharif are now our defenders of democracy. If the last
seven years have shown us anything it is the human greed knows no
boundaries, and that honest decent people dont have a hope in hell. Maybe,
it is time to reboot the system.
Ghazi Salahuddin wrote, we have some indications that the charter
has unnerved at least some in the ruling alliance. One thing is certain.
This charter can become a catalyst in our affairs mainly because it has come
at a time when a sense of crisis has deepened in different areas The
atmosphere of decay in governance is manifest in the daily lives of
ordinary citizens.
Instead of explaining what he has achieved, the president is making
more promises as if he is beginning his term in office. One example was
235

his approval on Thursday of a roadmap for promotion of technical

education. He gave five years targets to the relevant authorities So, is
what we are experiencing in these cryptic and confusing days an end of
some kind or a beginning?
Shafqat Mahmood observed, even now after seven years in power,
his principle focus remains the same: how to hang on to power. For this,
he is willing to make compromises and sup with known devils. He also does
not care what happens to his principle constituency, the army, because eightyear tenure of the chief and counting does the institution no favour. The
example of never wanting to quit has been avidly followed by others
connected with the government. They all want post-retirement jobs. Military
officers head this list and seem to have two careers; active service and postretirement. Musharraf uses this not only to oblige the retirees but also to
send a message to the serving. If you toe the line, all will be well, otherwise
you will wander around like headless chickens after retirement.
Burhanuddin Hasan wrote, now after more than six years of
Musharrafs rule the time has come to take a look at what became of his
promises. He no doubt succeeded in rebuilding the nations confidence and
morale for sometime, but unfortunately he has failed to strengthen the
federation by removing disharmony among the provinces.
Rahimullah Yusufzai advised, the military should ponder the
reasons that it is now openly and more frequently criticized than anytime in
the past. Those who held the armed forces in high esteem have also become
critical of the men in uniform.
The president lost the high moral ground after going back on his
promise, publicly made on television, to give up his army position and
uniform. He also courted controversy by allowing floor-crossing and voteselling (purchasing as well) through visible and intense horse-trading,
tolerating corrupt politicians who took his side and making them part of his
government, using NAB and intelligence agencies to make political leaders
fall in line, and openly patronizing the PML and allied parties.
Ashaar Rehman said, the charter has led to some very caustic
responses from the ruling group. For all these counter remarks may be
worth, none of the worthy gentlemen in the ruling camp has so far felt the
need to argue against it point by point. They have been otherwise heard so
vociferously campaigning for a president in uniform continuing in
foreseeable future but perhaps coming up with an anti-thesis to the BenazirNawaz proposals would amount to giving them undue importance. The
236

funniest part in the drama is where post-charter General Musharraf is shown

as coveting the post of the prime minister. More realistically, the
impossibilities inherent in the charter convey a message as if Mohtarma and
Mian Sahib are content with where they are.
Azam Khalil cautioned, the president has very little time on his
hands. And in case he allows his power base to erode, the perils of
incumbency will increase manifold. It may be time yet to talk to the main
middle-of-the-road political parties and evolve some sort of political
consensus in the country, a process that is all the more important in view of
the hostile external forces that are challenging Musharraf and his country.
He advised that the president, instead of bending his principles, must extend
his support only in view of the performance of the government.
BA Malik from Islamabad made it simple. To prove their muchtouted commitment to principles and sincerity to the people of Pakistan and
the world, other political parties viz. PML-Q, MMA and MQM should
sign this charter of democracy without delay. The time has come to prove
that our political class is capable of learning lessons from the past in order to
move towards the future.
Many analysts talked about elections. The restoration and the nonrecognition of Gen Musharrafs amendments are two of the three demands
contained in the charter. The third is that the next general elections should be
free and fair. And that, according to the charter, will be possible only if they
are held by a neutral caretaker administration. The two leaders reiterated
their common belief that fair elections would be impossible under
President Musharraf, wrote the News.
If pursued, this impossible element to the third demand no elections
under Musharraf is not going to further democracy. Its certain to spoil
the atmosphere for the elections. Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif have to decide
whether they want the elections or not. Because without the elections they
wont be able to have the Constitution restored, in whatever version of the
document.
In a subsequent editorial, the daily newspaper wrote, when Benazir
Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif declare that elections under Pervez Musharraf
are unacceptable, they dont say that they will boycott them if and when
they happen. Also, Qazi Hussain Ahmeds blunt statements about a boycott
are balanced by the cautious mutterings of his counterpart in the religious
parties alliance. MMA Secretary-General Maulana Fazlur Rehman says the
workers of the alliance have been told to mobilize for the polls. This
237

confounds those making too much of Qazis optimism that a march by the
alliances followers will topple the government much before the elections
can ever take place.
Shafqat Mahmood advocated end to present military rule in the garb
of controlled democracy, but doubted that mere elections could be the
remedy. Unfortunately, elections or their results have never mattered in
this country. It is the English-speaking elite which rules in one form or
another and elections to it are a nuisance because they throw up these
uncouth Urdu-medium types who have to be pandered to. It is this class that
gets tired of civilians and of democracy and ends up as an important pillar of
military rule. History will not wait for them to alter their mindset and change
will come whether they want it or not. But it would make the transition
smooth if this elite sees that democracy is essential and military rule
dangerous.
Nasim Zehra said, perhaps the most frequently discussed issue
among the establishment is why new leaders do not emerge and why the
public does not abandon the corrupt and the tried and tested politicians.
The answer is simply that political yields like emergence of new political
leaders and the rejection of the tried and failed can only be harvested
from a political cycle. In Pakistan the cycle rarely gets completed.
Dr Farrukh Saleem visualized some possible political scenarios in the
context of elections. The chickening out scenario: The establishment is
successful in scaring away both Benazir and Nawaz. Benazir and Nawaz,
craving for support from Condoleezza Rice, counting more on foreign
crutches than on votes back home, dont get the required nod. PPP and
PML-N, headless in a titled electoral field, face off an establishmentsponsored coalition of uniform-worshipping bigwigs.
The rough-ride scenario: There is a noise that a dungeon awaits
Benazir. Adjudicator after adjudicator with LFO running at full throttle in
all veins hands down a life sentence then another life sentence. There is a
noise that Nawazs pardon will be withdrawn. There indeed is a uniformed
master plan and under it anyone who opposes the president-general cant
win election.
Under the master plan, Sherpao is to deliver the NWFP, Ch Shujaat
must capture Punjab and Arbab Rahim is to bring in Sindh, But, with
Benazir in the dungeon and dal masoor at a whopping Rs 48 a kilo
engineered election results can easily boomerang. Benazir will be in for a
rough ride but her uniformed adversaries wont be any better off either.
238

The dj vu scenario: Benazir cuts a deal with the establishment

tearing off the Charter of Democracy. If history is any guide, one of the
two mainstream political parties will, once again as they have in the past,
capture the seat of power in Islamabad through Rawalpindi.
Mir Jamilur Rahman commented on MQM-PML-Q row in Sindh.
Ostensibly, the PML and the MQM have formed a coalition government in
Sindh. In reality, it is not a coalition but a dichotomy. Coalition does not
mean that the chief minister foregoes his constitutional authority or split it
between the coalition partners. The MQM claims that according to the terms
and conditions agreed upon, the chief minister was obliged to share authority
with the governor. Chief Minister Arbab Rahim disagrees with this
proposition. As he represents senior party in the coalition and enjoys the
confidence of the MPL leadership, therefore, he cannot and would not share
his powers with the MQM or anybody else.
To be sure, dichotomous rule in Sindh would be a recipe for political
disaster. If the MQM succeeded in its demands in Sindh, Islamabad would
not be far away. The MQM could demand the same dispensation in the
centre too. It is a fact that MQM ministers in the federal cabinet hold
office during the pleasure of the MQM high command. The MQM could
replace any of its ministers any time and the replacement is administered the
oath post-haste.
The party is overplaying its hand which could land it in big political
trouble. It has everything working for it, but still wants more. If pushed
to the corner, Chief Minister Arbab Rahim could come to terms with the
PPP, which after all is the biggest single party in the Sindh Assembly, and
leave MQM high and dry. Pir Pagara has already called for governors rule
in Sindh. The governor of course would be other than Ishratul Ibad. MQM
knows that this cannot happen because the party would pullout of coalition
in the centre and Musharraf Bhai will not let this happen.

HOME FRONT
The trio of Baluch sardadrs continued perpetrating terrorism in
Baluchistan. Following incidents of terror and counter-actions were
reported during the period:
On 7th May, three persons were killed and seven wounded in three
landmine blasts in Dera Bugti area.

239

 Six policemen were killed and 13 wounded in landmine explosions on

11th May at firing range of police training college in Quetta. Bugti
terrorists killed two people and wounded two more in Sui area.
Next day, three suspects involved in attack on police in Quetta were
arrested. Chief Minister hinted at Afghan link. He also confirmed that
ministers were receiving threats from BLA.
On 14th May, kidnapped Tehsildar was beheaded by Akbar Bugtis
terrorists. He paid high price for attempting to set the land record
straight. Additional SHO Dera Bugti was shot dead.
Nineteen rockets were fired at check posts in Dera Bugti, Loti,
Chashma and Sangsela on 15th May.
On 17th May, three persons were killed and three others wounded in
three incidents of firing, explosion and landmine blast in Dera Murad
Jamali, Dera Bugti and Kohlu.
Seventy members of Akbar Bugtis militia voluntarily surrendered
their weapons to DCO Dera Bugti on 18th May.
Two persons were killed in landmine explosion near Sibi on 25 th May.
Rockets were fired at a check post near Sui City.
On 27th May, a woman was killed and three persons injured in rocket
attack in Quetta.
After the Quetta blasts, the News wrote, its impossible for
terrorism of this scale to be entirely homegrown. There have been
repeated reports, as those after the recent blasts, of the involvement of
Afghan elements in the violence in Baluchistan. Regardless of the role of the
Kabul government in the deterioration of the situation in the province, the
terrorist would operate less easily if they didnt receive weapons, supplies
and assistance of other kinds via Afghanistan. Iran is out, particularly after
the newfound warmth in Pakistans relations with it.
The occupying power in Afghanistan, must share some blame
here. On Wednesday, the American commander of the combined Force in
Afghanistan said at the Pentagon that a coordinated military approach was
being adopted to address the threat of terror. A truly coordinated approach
requires that Gen Elkenberrys forces see to it as well that the country where
they are operating doesnt become a conduit for terrorism inside a country
which is an ally in the US war on terror.

240

Brig Asif Haroon observed, despite having taken effective counter

measures to extinguish the fire of insurgency, the province remains in the
grip of unrest. Its spill-over effects have now begun to contaminate the
Baluch-dominated neighbouring districts of Punjab and Sindh. We keep
talking about nabbing the masterminds but ignore the hard fact that the real
masterminds are sitting elsewhere with strings in their hands and stoking
the fire.
Unless we destroy all the Farari camps as well as the weapons and
ammunition caches, block supply from outside sources, and at the same time
convince the people that these belligerent sardars are playing into the
hands of their foreign mentors and are least interested in the development
of Baluchistan, we will have to contend with the unrest for a long time with
grim ramifications.
Muhammad Ejaz Khan said, observers are of the view every time
there is a grave incident of violence in the province; there are angry
promises of arrests and investigations as well as exemplary punishment. But
the need for a political dialogue is rarely even mentioned. That alone
would take care of foreign involvement, if any.
The News criticized the illegal ways of using money with the hope of
winning over public support against warlords. Musharrafs promise to write
off six billion rupees worth of loans owed by fishermen and farmers in
Baluchistan may seem a welcome step prima facie but can hardly be
expected to normalize the situation in the province.
As far this business of writing off loans, it will set a bad example.
How will the banks make up the amount written off? And can our financial
institutions afford such generosity, however well-deserved it may appear? In
any case, financial inducements are hardly the means to solve the
problems of the increasingly troubled province. They have always been
ineffective as far as normalizing the situation in Baluchistan is concerned.
The quest for the soft image continued, most of the time resorting to
cheap ways. On 20th May, EU Parliament asked Musharraf to spare British
man, Tahir Hussain, who is to be hanged next month for murdering a taxi
driver. Musharraf obeyed orders of the EU promptly; Tahirs execution was
stayed. Not only Musharraf stayed Britons execution, but he also tried to
purchase his freedom. Family of the murdered taxi driver, however, refused
to accept blood money. We will starve to death but we will never sell the
blood of our brother, said Maseet Khan.

241

The Crusaders of Europe never helped Musharraf in the context of

soft image. The German electronic and print media, which did not cover the
death of Amir, published the news of burning of German flag by some angry
students in Multan.
The News reported that the probe in Nishtar Park blast could end in
nothing. The man dubbed as suicide-bomber turned out to be a victim.
Brother of the victim from Abbotabad, Riasat Khan claimed that the head
was of his brother Amjad Khan.
Police did not believe Riasat and arrested three brothers of Amjad. If
police believe in identification of the head, the investigations would be
nullified. The possibility of involvement of a splinter group of LJ and
conflict between Brailvi and Deobandi factions has also made no headway.
The attitude of MQM, main ally in the ruling coalition, was no better
than the Crusaders. When governments inaction about Nishtar Park tragedy
prompted complete strike in Karachi, the provincial home minister of MQM
threatened the victims of registering cases under terror law in case they
expressed their anger against public property.
As regards Swiss visa scam, Asher Francis gave names of some Swiss
diplomats who were actually running the human smuggling racket. The
district sales manager of Swiss Airlines in Islamabad also gave vital
evidence before an Islamabad court, after becoming an important witness in
the case, and confirmed that visas were issued by Swiss officials on bogus
documents after taking money.
The Swiss government took measures to sweep the visa scandal under
the carpet. On 18th May, Switzerland recalled its entire diplomatic staff,
including the ambassador, posted in Islamabad and Karachi following the
confirmation of massive visa fraud. Bern had launched three disciplinary
investigations into the visa scam and confirmed irregularities in the issuance
of visa.
In complete disregard to diplomatic norms, much to the
embarrassment of Islamabad, the Swiss authorities did not deem it fit to take
the host government into confidence before the decision to recall its envoy
and other staff. Meanwhile, prime suspect, Major Ajmal, was arrested in UK
and the Swiss government sought his custody.
Zawahiris statement, in which he had asked army not to kill Muslim
brothers, was taken by Burhanuddin Hasan as proof of al-Qaedas
involvement in Nishtar Park blast. The ongoing military operation against

242

terrorists will continue to affect the country in the form of terrorist attacks.
The elements responsible for the suicide attack at Nishtar Park might be
connected with al-Qaeda. While leaving the commonsense aside, one must
appreciate his commitment to the war on terror. He should be sitting in
White House or Pentagon as adviser to the neocons who love such
concoctions.
Kamila Hyats resolve to fight militancy was stronger than Musharraf
which led her to criticize the government. There can be little doubt that
Pakistan has done too little to eliminate the destructive extremism now
deeply rooted within society, and which has acted to create new frictions and
new tensions.
The reasons for this are rooted in government policies that have
permitted seminary schools to continue to function and expand; in policies
that allow institutions such as the International Islamic University, imparting
hardline interpretations of many religious doctrines, to function freely. And
in measures that, in contrast, prevented liberal institutions of higher learning,
such as the Khaldunia University envisaged by the late Eqbal Ahmed, from
being set up. The contents of the educational curriculum, the limitations
placed through the design of syllabuses on creative thought or open
discussion and the continued circulation of hatred at mosques, in many
segments of the press and at public rallies have all played a part in the
setting up of this environment of extremism.
These accusations Pakistan can best prove untrue not through
vehement denials but by altering the perceptions that exist globally about
its role in fostering extremism. It can achieve this only by making a genuine
effort, on various fronts, to eradicate extremism from all the places where it
exists within the country today. Such analysts can only be pleased if
religious teaching, in any form, is completely banned.

CONCLUSION
Of late, Musharraf has stopped boasting about his countrys enormous
contribution to war on terror. Perhaps, he has realized that forced labour can
impress on one. May be lives long enough when others would talk about his
achievements as ally of the Crusaders and he wont like to listen them out
of shame.
There is nothing to conclude about peace process with India.
However, infertile political process in Pakistan produced Charter of
243

Democracy. The authors of the charter admitted their mistakes and

unanimously agreed that almost every aspect of the governance in Pakistan
has been faulty.
They approved the present economic policy by remaining quiet over
it. Above all they wisely pledged to pursue the present pro-US foreign
policy more vigorously. In nutshell, the charter conveyed clearly as to how
pious the politicians become when they are out of corridors of power.
The government was wrong in thinking that by pushing Akbar Bugti
out of his abode in Dera Bugti, the terrorism would end. This was what the
Americans did in Tora Bora and they find themselves still chasing the
elusive monster.
No analyst has yet dared to comment on the Swiss visa scam. No one
has uttered even a word of appreciation for the man who took pains to
uncover the ugly face of the civilized world. Its intellectual surrender, in
pursuit of soft image through tolerance.
29th May 2006

GLOBAL CRUSADES
The fighting away from these two countries, which happened to be the
main battlegrounds in the ongoing Crusades, subsided considerably. But it
did not satisfy the Crusaders urge for action. They have increased
diplomatic and media campaign against Iran, possibly, to open a new front.
The decline in intensity of hunt for Islamic terrorists and crackdowns
against Islamic extremism, allowed the Crusaders to push for its agenda of
empire building through elimination of envisaged pockets of resistance and
suppression of possible emergence of rivals. To this end, Australian troops
moved into East Timor to facilitate removal of its Muslim prime minister.
Pressure was maintained on Sudan and a new threat was identified after
Islamic groups gains in Somalia. In the context of prevention of emergence
of rivals, America focused on Chinas growing military prowess.
All this was being done by pretending to bring democracy, but
according to Nosheen Saeed, they were in fact rehabilitating fascist theories
about ethnically pure states and are preparing to do throughout the world
what they began in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. She opined, the guiding
principle of US international policy is that there is no guiding principle.

244

Bush Administrations war on terror was subjected to criticism on

various counts, particularly its complete disregard to international law and
morality in handling the detainees. US administration, however, showed no
intent mend its ways.
Campaign of demonizing Islam and its followers continued. The
plight of women in Islamic countries remained the favourite theme of the
propaganda. Hisri Ali, for her criticism of Islam, was considered a valuable
asset in this context and uncovering of her lies made no significant
difference.
On the other hand, incidents like the one of a German student who
was raped in India and she feared for her life, drew no attention of the
Western media. Had that happened in an Islamic country, the story would
have spread like wild fire. Perhaps, the Western media was too occupied in
providing coverage to outbursts of Hisri Ali against Islam.
Muslim Ummah remained in complete disarray. On 19th May, Imame-Kaaba, while addressing Friday congregation in Faisal mosque said that
anti-Muslim media campaign against Islam was more dangerous and worse
than terrorism. His cry fell of deaf ears.

AFRO-ASIA
The intensity of war on terror in Far East has noticeably decreased.
In Philippines, only one incident of killing of nine people and injuries to 20
others in a bomb blast in Jolo Island on 27 th March was reported. On 20th
May, OIC diplomats called for release of jailed Muslim rebel Nur Misuari to
help the progress in peace talks, but Manila hoped to strike peace deal with
Muslim guerrillas soon. Filipino Muslims opposed Manilas bid to join OIC.
Commenting on the situation in Philippines, the Japan Times wrote,
since 1994, its lawless southern islands have replaced Afghanistan as the
main training ground and refuge for Southeast Asian Jihadists. Most are
Indonesians belonging to Jemmah Islamiyah (JI), Mujahidin Kompak and
other Darul Islam factions.
Graduates of Mindanaos terror camps, for example, now rival in
number the older generation of Southeast Asian Afghan alumni that forged
ties with al-Qaeda. Veterans of the Mindanao camps have taken part in
almost every JI-linked bombing since 2000, including the attack that killed
hundreds in Bali in 2002. New cohorts will pose a danger for years to
come.

245

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is Southeast Asias

strongest separatist group. It enjoys popular support, expresses legitimate
grievances, and peace talks are under way. Like the Palestinians, however,
the MILF is raven by factions, and its leaders cannot, or will not exclude
terrorists from areas that they control. Despite having popular support,
legitimate grievances and joining peace talks they are considered terrorists
simply because they are Muslims.
Only in the Philippines do state failure, chronic insurgency and
proliferating ties between local and foreign terrorists come in lethal cocktail.
Combined with a restive military and an impotent administration, the
country has become Southeast Asias weakest link in the war on terror.
So what is to be done? American forces are probing the sanctuaries in
the garb of training exercises, and they are backing targeted air strikes. But
they must tread lightly, lest they be drawn into a shooting war, which would
catalyze new alliances among local and foreign militants. A conventional
military approach failed in Cambodia and Lebanon. It would fail in
Mindanao, too.
Instead, surgical military strikes based on an expanded intelligence
effort should compliment the peace process, prying extremists away from
the MILF mainstream However, this will remain a futile mission until the
armed forces are professionalized and depoliticized through reorientation to
external defence, border security and special operations.
All the people who pick up the courage fight for their rights, and when
their rights are in conflict with interests of the US or other developed
countries, they are dubbed as terrorists, because they perforce resort to
unconventional methods to fight against the might of superior forces. In the
process, legitimacy of their grievances, rights and struggle are ignored and
their unconventional warfare is termed as terrorism.
On 19th April, the day of Senate elections, Islamic militants in
Thailand killed 3 people and wounded 21, mostly policemen and polling
staff. Three people were killed and 19 wounded in a bomb blast in a tea shop
in the south on 10th May.
In Indonesia, police detained a man on 10th April for suspected link to
a terrorist network. Indonesias most wanted militant, Noordin Mohammad
escaped police raid, but two of the companions of Malaysian-born fugitive
were killed during the raid on 29 th April. Two days later, a court jailed a man
for four years for harbouring Noordin Mohammad. On 21st May, thousands
of Muslims rallied in Jakarta to support anti-pornography bill.
246

Bangladesh defended its handover of an American-born Bangladeshi

to FBI, who would possibly face terror charges. On 18 th May, Dhaka sought
US help to track militants cash. Two militant leaders charged with
masterminding a string of blasts were sentenced to death on 29th May.
In Australia, Pakistani-born architect charged with plotting a jihad
attack in Australia, while testifying at his trial, denied involvement in
planning acts of terrorism. Australia as theatre commander moved its troops
into East Timor to decontaminate its regime of Islamic pollution.
The newly liberated country of East Timor is predominantly
Christian. The country experienced bloody unrest which started after Prime
Minister Alcatraz sacked 600 soldiers, or about 40 percent of the armed
forces. Violent protests over alleged discrimination against soldiers from the
east pushed the country to the verge of civil war and claimed 20 lives during
second and third week of May.
On 1st June, East Timor minister for security resigned after accepting
rifts in the countrys security forces. Prime Minister of East Timor refused to
resign under pressure and the very next day the United Nations warned of
more violence in East Timor.
Lora Horta pointed out the reasons behind this unrest. There are
many factors underlying East Timors political tinderbox: regional and
ethnic rivalries, political factionalism, unemployment and a culture of
violence stemming from 24 years of brutal Indonesian occupation. But some
argue the real trigger to the violence was the dubious circumstances
behind the re-election of Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri as secretary
general of the ruling Fretilin party Alkatiri, an Arab Muslim with a
controversial ruling style, was recently re-elected as the partys leader in a
landslide 97% open vote.
Rebels had recently abstained from new attacks, hoping that the
earlier unrest would have persuaded Alkatiri to step aside and make way
for Jose Luis Guterres, East Timors current ambassador to Washington
and the United Nations, to take over the party reins. Rebel leaders have
repeatedly said they want Alkatiri to resign his leadership position.
Most of the partys leadership was killed during the war for
independence and the only surviving founding figures, such as Jose Ramos
Horta, or long-time members, such as President Xanana Gusmao, abandoned
the party in the late 1980s to become independent figures for the sake of
national unity. Alkatiri is one of the partys few surviving founders.

247

Alkatiri spent the 24-year fight for independence from Indonesia in

relative obscurity in exile in Mozambique. Upon returning, his style of
leadership, akin to that of some of the abusive African leaders he may have
encountered, has been characterized by confrontation, particularly with
the influential Catholic Church.
That Alkatiri is an ethnic-Arab Muslim while 92% of the population
is devout Catholic has pitched his vocal stands against the Church on
dangerous religious lines. More significantly, perhaps, Alkatiri has
implemented a foreign policy overtly confrontational to the West. His
recent decision to hire nearly 500 Cuban doctors after visiting that country,
despite strong objections from the US ambassador, was highly controversial
and oddly aligned East Timor with the resurgent leftist movement gaining
ground in Latin America.
Likewise, Alkatiris bizarre attempt to declare a national day of
mourning for Yasser Arafats death did not endear him to the US or other
Western countries. There was also widespread speculation that Alkatiri
planned to award a multibillion-dollar gas pipeline project to
PetroChina, an invitation that would have won both the United States and
Australias ire.
The United States discontent with Alkatiri was clearly on display
when the US ambassador openly supported the Catholic Church against
his government, with the senior US official even briefly attending one of the
protests in person. The secular civilized world will still not be ashamed in
claiming that Church has nothing to do with affairs of the State.
When a new bout of disquiet broke out after Alkatiris
unconventional re-election as Fretilin party leader, the massive desertions
ensued. Now only foreigners can ensure the islands security. As East Timor
burns, one thing is certain: Alkatiri has lost the support of the people, the
military, the police, the Church and potentially the countrys most important
foreign allies.
With the security forces now in open revolt, even with foreign troop
intervention, there will not be a definitive end to the crisis until Alkatiri
unconditionally resigns, some insiders contend East Timors problems
are entirely internal, with a pinch of foreign salt perhaps, but in the end will
require an internally brokered compromise and solution. And the longer the
unpopular Alkatiri holds on to power, the more distant that prospect
remains.

248

Whereas the factors enumerated by Lora Horta were merely the

pretexts, Jon Lamb mentioned the real reason. The Australian government
from the moment war-torn East Timor began the transition to
independence pressured, bullied and hustled East Timor into giving up
oil and gas resources and sovereignty over seabed territory in the Timor
Sea. It has stolen wealth generated from these reserves that rightfully
belongs to East Timor.
Along with the United States and Britain, Australia has formed a
triumvirate of nations that have acted to block the creation of an
international inquiry to bring to account the Indonesian military (TNI)
officers andmilitia leaders responsible for the post-referendum carnage in
1999. Now these three countries are deepening and improving military ties
with the TNI, even though the TNI is continuing to conduct gross humanrights abuses in places like West Papua
Australias ongoing theft of oil from the Timor Sea combined with
its long history of undermining the East Timorese nation suggests that
Australias motivation for the current military intervention is more about
shoring up a continued flow of oil than helping the East Timorese
people. When it comes to oil, the supreme interests of the White Christians
over-ride interests of all others, even the coloured Christians.

Mainland Asia, primarily, is the domain of Russia and China

incorporated where required. In April, China, Russia and four Central Asian
states planned anti-terrorism drills. However, racist terrorism in Russia
continued. On 7th April, a Senegalese student was killed in Saint Petersburg
in a racist attack.
Flow of information from Chechnya remained strictly controlled.
Only one incident of a car bomb attack was reported in which seven people,
including Russian policeman, were killed in city of Nazran, Ingushetia. A
Russian judge sentenced Nurpashi Kulayev, the only surviving Beslan
hostage-taker, to life in jail.
Anne Nivat quoted Lida Iusupova, Chechen human rights activist,
about the situation in Chechnya. If we want to find out how many Chechens
have died and how many have fled to Western Europe or Russia, wed have
a few surprises. There are hardly any Chechens left in Chechnya. I know
that its hard for a European to understand this conflict. But its an aberration
to destroy all the elements of a peoples culture.

249

Iusupova considers the Russian governments claim to be using

legal methods in Chechnya to be the ultimate in cynicism. Why was the
war zone closed to representatives of international organizations and the
media during the second campaign? Because Russia did not want the world
to see the inhumane methods it was using to restore order in Chechnya. Socalled Chechenization simply means those in power using the same
methods, assassinations, kidnappings and the like, that representatives of the
Russian government hold so dear.
Rest of Central Asia remained quiet. During first week of April,
Turkmenistan and China agreed to crackdown on separatists. On 15th May
nine Hizbi Tahrir activists were sentenced in Tajikistan. America, however,
did not acknowledge the role of China in war on terror and instead,
Pentagon termed Chinas military development as potential threat to US.
Dan Blumenthal discussed the nature and extent of Chinese threat.
The new arsenal of the Peoples Liberation Army includes more than 700
missiles deployed opposite Taiwan, a fleet of sophisticated diesel electric
submarines, a growing nuclear submarine capability and advanced
destroyers armed with lethal anti-ship cruise missiles.
By making the potential cost of any US intervention in the Taiwan
Strait extraordinarily high, Beijing has accomplished its decade-long goal of
establishing a credible military threat to Taiwan as well as a deterrent
to the United States. The Question is what next?
Since Beijings economic and diplomatic interests span the globe
Beijing may conclude that relying on the US Navy for the safety of its
energy supplies is too risky, and decide to increase its naval presence
along the expanse between the Persian Gulf and East Asia. This would
make the Chinese navy the first since the Cold War to compete for sea
control with the United States. In addition, there are numerous disputed
territorial claims in the East China and South China seas that China could
settle by military means.
Of course, given the opaque character of Chinese military planning
and government decision making, analysts can only speculate as to what
turns the Chinese military build-up take Indeed, the Pentagon report notes
that secrecy, deception and surprise remain key components of Chinese
strategic practice.
PS Suryanarayana observed that America was facing problems in
implementation of its policy of containing China. Despite being a long-term
military ally of Washington, Canberra has now explicitly enunciated its
250

policy of non-containment towards China. Washington, too, is engaged in

dialogue with Beijing, President Hu Jintaos latest diplomatic exercise in this
domain being illustrative of the ground realities. However, the US is no less
convinced that its supremacy as todays sole superpower on the global stage
cannot be sustained if China is not suitably checkmated. The idea,
obviously, is to deny China the luxury of graduating from the virtual status
of an offstage superpower to the real position of an onstage superpower.
On 14th April, North Korea said it can increase deterrent many times
to counter a hostile US. America blamed China for not doing more in
solving the nuclear dispute with DPRK. China hit back at the criticism and
asked US to be more assertive in six nation talks aimed at ending North
Koreas nuclear weapons drive. It argued that the other parties should show
more flexibility.
Bushs top advisers formulated a broad new approach to deal with
North Korea that would include negotiations on peace treaty, even while
efforts to dismantle the countrys nuclear program are under way. Till now
America has been refusing to talk on peace treaty.
On 22nd May, the US said North Korea will not get a better deal by
staying away from six-party talks. Ten days later, North Korea invited US
Envoy in an apparent bid to restart stalled talks, but threatened to take
strongest measure if Washington maintained a hostile policy.
Keizo Nabeshima emphasized on North Korean threat with intentions
need not be mentioned being too obvious. North Korea is reportedly
gearing up to fire the long-range Taepodong 2 ballistic missile, which is
capable of hitting part of the mainland United States North Korea in
1993 developed the 1,300-km-range Rodong missile capable of hitting
anywhere in Japan, and in 1998 it fired the 1,500-km-plus-range Taepodong
1 missile, which flew over Japan and fell into the Pacific.
Gen Burwell Bell, commander of US forces in South Korea said in
US Congressional testimony that there had been a quantum leap in
accuracy in North Korean solid-fuel missile. He testified that Taepodong
3 missile would be capable of hitting anywhere in the mainland US.
After explaining the nature of the threat, the General explained the
measures adopted to counter the threat. There was no talk of military preemption, or regime change; unlike the case of Iran. The reasons behind this
double standard were: Iran is an Islamic state and left at its own by Muslim
World; whereas in case of North Korea the countries of the region oppose

251

military action. In addition, DPRK is suspected of possessing nuclear

deterrence, in addition to its military might, whereas Iran has no WMDs.
The war in countries of Middle East, being in the vicinity of the
main battleground, is directly controlled by the America with the support of
European Crusaders. Countries of Arabian Peninsula remained quiet as was
evident from Danish products making a comeback in Saudi Arabia and
women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time in Kuwait.
Authorities in Lebanon arrested nine men suspected of planning to
assassinate the head of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah. On 27 th April,
Bush ordered freeze of assets of anyone found involved in Hariris murder.
Events elsewhere in the region have forced deferring of the Crusaders
plans for Syria. Khaled Yacoub Oweis observed, US hawks once talked of
regime change in Damascus, catalyzed by military force if necessary, but
Syrian leaders now appear confident that Washington is too preoccupied
with the Iraq conflict, the nuclear standoff with Iran and the rise of Hamas to
contemplate any further regional instability.
Patrick Seale was of the view that Syria is the linchpin in the battle
raging for the region. On one side of the conflict stand the United States
and its Israeli ally. They bully their opponents, and are swift to resort to
threats or brute force. Ranged against them is a motley anti-western
alliance
Four men represent this alliance: President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
of Iran, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah, head of
Lebanons Hezbollah movement, and the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail
Haniyeh of Hamas. None of these men is a saint and all have resorted to
questionable tactics, but together they form the main resistance to USIsraeli hegemony over the region.
The struggle is particularly ferocious because it is being waged in a
context of international anarchy. The flames were fanned by the illegal
western invasion of Iraq, which has distorted every political relationship in
the Middle East and given a great boost to its most violent and lawless
elements.
Amid this chaos, Israeli and American strategists see Syria as the
regions weak link. Bring the country to heel, runs their argument, and
the whole Tehran/Damascus/Hezbollah/Hamas axis would collapse. An
isolated Iran could then be forced to shut down its nuclear programme; Iraqi
insurgents would be deprived of jihadi reinforcements; Hezbollah could be
252

disarmed and Lebanon brought into the US-Israeli orbit, and Israel could
make short work of Hamas.
Hazem Sagheih said, at an international level, Syrias authoritarian
approach has proved to be less than endearing. If the Middle East is to shake
off the resentment caused by the 20th century pan-Americanism, it is up to
Syria to become, instead of a dictatorial elder brother, a good
sovereign neighbour.
Egypt has been experiencing the heat of the battle raging in the
region. On 24th April, at least 30 people, including foreigners, were killed
and more than 100 wounded in blasts at the Red Sea resort of Dahab. Two
days later, two suicide bombers were killed by security forces near border
with Gaza Strip. On 9th May, police killed Nasser Khamis al-Malahi, who
was blamed for Sinai bombings.
The Washington Post preferred to talk about promotion of democracy
in Egypt. Whats truly remarkable is the way in which the Bush
Administration has abruptly dropped its own attempt to promote
Egyptian liberalism. The day after riot police violently put down a prodemocracy demonstration in Cairo this month, Mr Bush, Vice President
Cheney, Ms Rice and other senior officials all found time to huddle privately
with Mr Mubaraks son, Gamal. Most Egyptians believe the son is being
groomed to succeed his father; many are convinced that strategy explains the
jailing of Mr Nour and the suppression of the opposition.
Ahdaf Soueif differed, Nours profile in the western press is due to
the fact that he could be a viable alternative for the US: if supporting
Hosni Mubarak becomes too difficult, Nour could represent a fresh start
along the same road of free-market values and policies. Whether Egyptians
want to take this road should be a matter of public debate.
On 17th May, a lawyer opened fire in a court in Turkey and killed one
judge and injured four others. The Council of State has faced fierce criticism
in Islamist circles for hardline implementation of secularist laws such as
headscarf ban in universities and state offices.
Madeleine Bunting said, this is a country that spent much of the 20 th
century poised precariously between secularism and political Islam. As both
become more globally aggressive, it risks being torn between them That
danger was brought sharply home last week when gunman opened fire in a
Turkish court The assailantexplained his attack as revenge for the
judges ruling in a recent case that a teacher who wore a veil outside work
should not be promoted to head teacher of a primary school.
253

The ruling is in line with Turkeys strict interpretation of

secularism. The state rules out veils in any public building (thus banning
even the current Prime Ministers wife from public functions); yet it has
always funded and closely regulated the countrys Islamic worship.
This murder will only confirm the fears of the secular
Europeanized elite that Turkeys delicate balance of faith and secularism is
unraveling. They feel beleaguered as the ruling Justice and Development
party promotes the religious into positions of power. A wife in a headscarf
has become an essential attribute for the ambitious Turk.
The secular elite is clinging to EU membership as the one hope of
reversing this trend. If the process slows down as it might well do given
such incidents as the fracas that has erupted between France and Turkey over
a law proposed in the French legislature outlawing denial of the Armenian
genocide the reaction could prompt an intensification of Islamism
Much of the opposition to Turkish EU membership pivots on these ironies
and the questions they prompt: is Europe a geographical or a cultural entity,
and how do you define the boundaries of either?
Matein Khalid wrote, the killings in the Istanbul courtroom awakened
the demons of the post Kemalist past, triggering demonstrations against the
government of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan The militarys rebuke is
ominous because the armed forces are passionate guardians of the states
secular Kemalist legacy A confrontation between the Army and a nonsecular civilian in Turkey can have only one endgame; a military coup.
Political risk is rising dangerously fast in Turkey. Three years ago,
Erdogan was hailed as a hero in the Middle East for his moderate religious
agenda, for refusing to join Blair and Bush in the invasion of Iraq, for
accelerating the EU accession agenda, for epic banking reforms, agreements
with IMF, for the plunge in inflation and interest rates, the resurrection of the
lira from the 2001 currency meltdown, for defusing the geopolitical time
bombs in Cyprus and Kurdistan, for triggering a spectacular bull market on
the Istanbul Stock Exchange, yet Prime Minister Erdogan now faces a
grim summer of discontent.
NATO, the EU, IMF, the PKK, the Turkish general staff, London and
Washington are formidable adversaries for any Turkish Prime Minister
to have to confront. In fact, Erdogans insistence on an executive from a
Shria complaint finance house to succeed the incumbent governor of the
Central Bank outraged the offshore money managers who own Turkish

254

shares and Eurobonds, triggering a panic sell-off on the ISE even worse than
Indias Sensex trauma.
Erdogan is no Khoemini, even if his enemies portray him as a
backward foe of the Kemalist ethos. He is merely trying to mobilize his
constituency in rural Turkey to win the 2007 election in a landslide, to
succeed Ahmed Nezer as President and preempt a military coup against an
Islamist head of state.
The New York Times was of the view that Erdogan was right, and
now is the time for him to forcefully reassert that view. Washington can
help promote Turkish democracy by using its longstanding ties with
Turkeys generals to communicate zero tolerance for military meddling.
Turkey borders Iran, Iraq and Syria, and is an ally of Israel, a member of
NATO and a candidate for the European Union. The world can ill afford for
it to become less democratic.

Africa is also looked after directly by America, of course, with

intimate support of European countries. The oil wealth of Nigeria has been
monopolized by multinationals leaving the locals to scrounge some of their
share through stealing. On 12th May, more than 200 people were killed in oil
pipeline blast which occurred during stealing. A day earlier, three foreign oil
workers were abducted who were released later.
After subduing the strongman of North Africa, Washington decided to
open embassy in Tripoli after 25 years. On 15 th May, it decided to take
Libya off terror supporting nations list. Libya claimed that no compromise
was made to ensure ties with US. In Ethiopia, 4 people were killed and 41
wounded during second week of May in a series of nine blasts in the capital.
Algeria, in addition to oil, suffers from Christian-Muslim militancy.
Algerian government formulated a plan to reconcile the nation, but a leader
of a banned Islamist party termed it unconstitutional while insisting that
peace can only come through negotiations. French newspaper blamed him
for sabotaging the peace plan.
Algerias troubles are the result of civilized worlds interests in the
country, opined Patrick Seale. First, Algeria has large quantities of oil
and gas, located within easy reach of European markets. Just this month, an
Italian company, Edison, announced a major gas discovery, which followed
the announcement last November by Total, the French oil company, of a gas
discovery some 500 kilometers south of the super-giant field of Hassi
RMel.

255

Secondly, high prices of oil and gas have made Algeria prosperous.
It has substantial trade surplus and record foreign exchange reserves,
estimated at some $ 50 billion Algeria offers good possibilities for foreign
investors in a wide variety of different fields.
Thirdly, anxious to play a bigger role in sub-Saharan Africa and
engaged in long-running dispute with Morocco over the Western Sahara,
Algeria wants to modernize its armed services. A fourth reason is the
invention of the US to get its own interest served. The Americans fear
that al-Qaeda might establish bases in countries such as Mauritania, Mali,
Chad and Niger, which are not strongly governed or policed.
On 27th April, Bush implemented UN-ordered sanctions on four men
accused of atrocities in Darfur where 180,000 people were reported killed in
three years of conflict. Sudan is deeply divided along religious Muslim
and Christian and Ethnic lines. Fighting broke out in Darfur, a region the
size of France in Sudan, when rebels had had enough of discrimination and
neglect by the Sudanese government, which is more Arab and Islamist in
Khartoum. A bitter and bloody struggle ensued, wrote the Japan Times.
Equally troubling, the involvement of neighbouring countries means
that the fighting could spill over borders. A return to war would once again
demonstrate the inability of the UN to fulfill its mandate to be a force for
peace in the world. Troubling neighbours are predominantly Christian.
The Washington Post bluntly blamed Sudanese government for the
crisis. The US government has described the killing in Darfur as genocide,
a term that Sudans government rejects and that the United Nations and
Europeans have also shrunk from using. The more that the conflict in Darfur
features infighting between rebel factions rather than just atrocities by the
governments militia, the more observers may resist pointing the finger at
the government and accusing it of genocide. But the reason that Sudans
government is culpable, today as in the past, is that it is deliberately
creating the conditions in which thousands of civilians from rebel-aligned
tribes are likely to die. First the government and its militia drove these
people from their villages. Then it impeded humanitarian workers so that
thousands of them fell prey to disease or starved. Now it is obstructing a
serious peace-keeping deployment, with the result that its victims will
continue to face shortage of medicines and food.
Hassan Hanizadeh wrote, totally aware of both the regional and
international situations, the Sudanese government, led by President alBashir, tried to resolve the conflict in the south through a national and
256

Islamic process. However, due to the interference of the United States and its
Western allies, all these endeavours have come to naught.
Gaining control over the countrys natural resources and part of the
Nile River in order to pressure Sudan and Egypt, which both depend on the
continents life-giving river, is main objective of the Western interference
in Sudans internal affairs Although the United States and Britain have
attempted to exaggerate the Darfur crisis, the problem can be managed
through humanitarian efforts, without the interference of Western powers.
Meanwhile, African Union mediated in resolution of the crisis. On
25 April it presented the warring parties a draft peace agreement and
urged them to sign the deal by April 30. A spokesman for the rebel Sudan
Liberation Movement (SLM) said it viewed the plans stance on powersharing and disarmament as too tailored to Khartoums demands. The peace
plan is much closer to the governments plans as opposed to being balanced.
th

Arab News dwelled on the peace agreement. A peace deal signed by

the largest rebel faction in Darfur and the Sudanese government will not end
the three-year-old conflict, but could bring more protection for millions of
refugees The refusal of two rebel factions to join in the agreement on
Friday, which marked the end of two years of talks in the Nigerian capital,
illustrates that divisions between rival ethnic groups in Darfur have not
been addressed There is a real problem between nomads and urban
groups, said an analyst in Khartoum, adding that the neighbouring Eritrea
and Chad were also fuelling the war.
Many analysts doubt the sincerity of the government, which holds the
key to implementing the deal, because Khartoum has undermined many
agreements in the past. He added, Washington has been pushing to
install UN peacekeepers with powers to intervene in the fighting, to replace
a 7,000-strong African Union force, which has proven too small and
toothless to enforce a ceasefire. Khartoum had insisted that a peace deal with
the rebels was a precondition for any UN force.
US media tirelessly pleaded for foreign intervention in Darfur. The
Boston Globe argued, the campaign to save 2 million displaced persons
of Darfur who are still alive but threatened with malnutrition, disease, and
unrelenting violent assaults must pass to private citizens because the
governments of the world will not act to stop this genocide without pressure
from below. This must be moral as well as political pressure, and it must
come from men and women who share with the people of Darfur a kinship
in what was once called the Family of Man.
257

Wesley Clark and John Prendergast urged Bush to intervene. While

Bush did call for NATO to oversee a UN peacekeeping mission, the African
Union buckled to pressure from Khartoum to delay any sort of UN transition
until at least October. Meanwhile the people of Darfur continue to wait, and
the security situation along the Chad-Sudan border is deteriorating into a
regional conflagration with grave humanitarian implications. Bush needs to
ensure an accelerated AU handover to the UN and identify a capable
nation to lead a UN-mandated stabilization force to immediately buttress the
AUs civilian protection efforts and help secure the border.
The Japan Times joined hand with the West. Warring factions
concluded a peace agreement that is designed to end three years of vicious
fighting The UN must get serious about enforcing this agreement Being
unable to enforce the agreement will ensure its failure. That will not only
plunge Darfur back into fighting, but could lead to a humanitarian disaster.
Los Angeles Time said, eventually the AU troops should be
replaced with a UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur, involving about
20,000 soldiers. The problem is that NATO doesnt want to act without the
backing of the United Nations, which wants permission from the African
Union, which wants permission from the Sudanese government, which
would prefer to keep foreign troops out and has been holding out of the hope
that it would reach a peace deal on its own.
Even if a deal is reached, it probably wont bring peace to Darfur for
some time. The Sudanese government would have to live up to its promise
to disarm the militias, unlikely to happen anytime soon because Khartoum
denies arming them to begin with. UN peacekeepers would still be needed
even without Sudanese permission.
The New York Times also urged deployment of UN peacekeepers. If
the United Nations is to have any hope of repairing its tattered image around
the world particularly in America its diplomats must quickly eliminate
any bureaucratic hurdles in the way of a peacekeeping mission A peace
deal reached last week between the government of Sudan and the largest
rebel group is a good first step. But that deal is utterly meaningless
without a strong UN force on the ground to back it up.
Sudans government has indicated that the peace deal now signed, it
no longer objects to the deployment of a UN force. Diplomats should take
this and run with it, straight to Darfur with a contingent of at least
20,000 well-armed multinational soldiers, from both Arab and African

258

countries. The negotiations are over, and the peace deal is in effect. Now is
the time for action.
Francis Fukuyama and Anthony Lake urged, Washington should
make it clear that if Sudan refuses to accept a United Nations force, we will
press NATO to act even without the consent of the Sudanese
government including a no-flight zone to ground the Sudanese aircraft
that have provided support to the murderous Janjaweed. And we would bring
further sanctions to bear A failure of international will has allowed Darfur
to bleed into another year of rape, slaughter and starvation. Only strong
leadership and urgent, resolute action can save lives before his moment of
hope is lost.
The Christian Science Monitor brought the Monster into the equation.
In April, Osama bin Laden urged all Muslims to fight in Sudan if UN troops
go to Darfur. Sudan leader Omar el-Bashir also warned UN forces would
find their graveyard in the province. So what did the UN Security Council
do? It voted to set up a force in Darfur The UN also stood up nicely to
the threats of al-Qaeda and its friends in the Islamic World. And China, too,
which up to now has sided with Sudan because of its reliance on oil exports
from the northeast African nation, appears to have decided it cant afford to
stand in the way of an effort to end a genocide.
No matter what Sudan says, the council appears determined to move
ahead. The unanimous resolution demands that Sudan allow a UN
assessment team of military experts into Darfur by next week. It also
threatens sanctions against Sudanese officials who oppose the shaky accord
between Sudan and the main rebel force in Darfur signed May 5. And John
Bolton, US envoy to the UN, warns: Sudan would find itself in a very
difficult position if it didnt cooperate.
Sudan had earlier indicated that it might be ready to accept UN
peacekeepers taking over from AU troops in Darfur. Bush had already
identified a nation of one billion people with second largest army in the
world to undertake such tasks. Kofi Annan pursued the implementation of
superpowers policy. His article published in the daily Hindu, was in fact an
appeal for peacekeepers to the newly recruited strategic partner, India, for
ongoing Crusades.
He argued that the agreement in Darfur gives the world one more
chance to bring peace to that unhappy region. But we need to act very
urgently if that opportunity is not to be lost Darfur is still far from being
at peace. Only last week, while the UNs top humanitarian envoy was
259

visiting a camp for displaced people, rioting broke out and an interpreter for
the African Union Mission was hacked to death.
There is a vast amount to be done and no time to lose. First, there are
some rebel leaders who have not yet signed the agreement Next, we must
do everything in our power to ensure that those who have signed the
agreement actually implement it on the ground, and that the people of Darfur
can survive the next few months The African Union Mission must be
transformed into a larger and more mobile United Nations operation, better
equipped and with a stronger mandate.
No peacekeeping mission can succeed without the support and
cooperation of the parties, at the highest level. Thats why I have written to
President Bashir asking him to support the assessment We in the UN
Secretariat will do everything in our power to help Sudans people close this
tragic chapter in their history. I count on the support of all member states,
especially those in the Security Council.
Paul Moorcroft was one of the few odd men who warned that Iraq
beckons in Darfur if US sends in troops. Western intervention in Sudan
would play into the terrorists hands, uniting all factions in a war against
outsiders. Jonathan Steele criticized the West for distorting the facts.
I call it the Darfur Disconnect. One TV reporter after another does
the standard tour into Sudans western region, guided by rebel groups. Out
comes footage of miserable refugees huddling in tents or shelters of sticks
and plastic and recounting stories of brutal treatment by government-backed
Janjaweed militias. Commentators thunder away at the need for sanctions
against the regime in Khartoum and denounce western leaders for not
authorizing NATO to intervene.
Last weekend the outrage took a new turn, with big demonstrations in
several American cities, strongly promoted by the Christian right, which
sees the Darfur conflict as another case of Islamic fundamentalism on the
rampage. They urged Bush to stop shill-sallying and be tougher with the
government in Sudan.
The TV reports are not wrong. They just give a one-sided picture
and miss the big story Sudans government accepted the US-brokered
draft agreement last weekend, and it is the rebels who have been risking a
collapse Darfurs marginalization (which was one of the issues that led to
the conflict) will be addressed through extra funding from Sudans national
budget. Affirmative action will give Darfurians public-service jobs. The

260

rebels will have the right to nominate the governor of one of Darfurs three
states, and the deputy governors of the other two.
Fighting erupted in Somalia in second week of May. By 9 th May,
death toll rose to 24 in three days of fighting in Mogadishu between Islamic
militia and a US-backed warlord. Heavy fighting continued in Somalia and
by 13th May, death toll reached 144. On 25 th May, at least 30 people were
killed and 72 wounded in fresh clashes in Moghadishu. Six days later, seven
more people were killed in fighting.
Andrew Cawthorne wrote, the Islamic militia, linked to powerful
Sharia Courts which provide a semblance of order in lawless Mogadishu,
say the warlords are funded by the United States. Many believe that
But the coalition counters that their opponents are extremists who have links
to al-Qaeda and are inviting foreign jihadists into the fray. Washington has
stayed mum on the specific accusations but repeatedly said it reserves the
right to back groups fighting terrorism in Somalia They are fighting
because they are getting arms from somewhere. There is so much rumour the
United States is funding these warlords The Americans have to
categorically deny this.
But the Islamic militia may grow stronger in the long-term as the
perceived US intervention rallies support among Muslims inside or outside
the country, analysts say. He quoted Kinyan diplomat Kiplagat; if anyone
in Somalia wants to combat terrorists, then the best way to act on that
would be to deal with the government.
The US involvement, an open secret since 2002, became undeniable
this month after fighting between the two sides killed at least 140 people in
Mogadishu. Last week, White House and State Department spokesmen did
not bother, even when asked, to shoot down reports that the US is backing
one of the warring militia thus backhandedly confirming that the Somalia
operation had White House approval, observed Los Angeles Times.
Its one thing to offer rewards for the capture of terrorists in Somalia,
as the United States has done elsewhere with Osama bin Laden. Its quite
another to shower cold-blooded killers with cash in hopes of inducing
them to hand over terrorist suspects. Yet the Nation newspaper in Nairobi
published an article about a clandestine trip by US agents to Mogadishu,
where they reportedly handed-out millions to warlords to help identify
members of al-Qaeda said to be involved in the 1998 bombing of the US
Embassy in Nairobi and hiding in Somalia.

261

Ideology, Islam or otherwise, has never been much of a factor in

Somalias ugly conflicts. But with $ 100 million up for grabs, opportunistic
warlords have been only too happy to give themselves a name to appeal to
American deep pockets: the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and
Counter-terrorism The emergence of a suddenly well-armed force with
overt links to Uncle Sam has had the predictable effect of uniting the
heretofore factitious Islamists against their common enemies. Now they are
more dangerous than before.

AMERICA
While fighting war in Iraq and Afghanistan and delegating the
responsibility in rest of the world to regional watch-dogs and willingpartners, America did not relax on its internal security. On 27th March,
Zacarias Moussaoui testified that he and Richard Reid were supposed to
hijack fifth airplane on Sept 11, 2001, and fly it into White House. On 3 rd
May, he was jailed for life.
Bush Administration by authenticating Bin Laden tapes and stressing
that these should be taken seriously secured justifications for adopting
stringent security measures, particularly targeting the immigrants. The issue
on immigrants was widely debated in America with a view to finding the
solution. The suggestion of Maggie Mitchell Salem to legalize illegal
aliens, was one of the many solutions. Michell Goldberg, however,
apprehended that while the West was pressing Islamic World to give up
religion for secularism, the revival of religion in America posed a threat to
national harmony.
If current trends continue, we will see ever-increasing division and
acrimony in our politics. Thats partly because, as Christian nationalism
spreads, secularism is spreading as well, while moderate Christianity is in
decline The top three gainers in Americas vast religious market-place
appear to be Evangelical Christians, those describing themselves as NonDenominational Christians
This is a recipe for polarization. As Christian nationalism becomes
more militant, secularists and religious minorities will mobilize in
opposition, ratcheting up the hostility. Thus we are likely to see a shrinking
middle ground, with both camps increasingly viewing each other across a
chasm of mutual incomprehension and contempt. In the coming years, we

262

will probably see the curtailment of the civil rights that gay people, women
and religious minorities have won in the last few decades.
Christian nationalism is still constrained by the constitution, the
courts, and by a passionate democratic (and occasionally Democratic)
opposition. Its also limited by capitalism. Many corporations are happy to
see their political allies harness the rage and passion of the Christian rights
foot soldiers, but the culture industry is averse to government censorship
It would take a national disaster, or several of them, for all these bulwarks
to crumble and for Christian nationalists to truly take the land, as Michael
Farris, president of the evangelical Patrick Henry College, put it.
AFP reported on racism in America. Imette St Guillen, 24, was
raped and murdered last month and her battered body was dumped near a
roadside in Brooklyn. Another lady, Romona Moor, 21, had met similar fate.
The two victims shared a common profile: both young, both women and
both college students.
So the fact that the St Guillen case became a media obsession while
the Moore case was almost completely ignored has been attributed to the
most obvious difference between the two: one victim white and middle
class, the other black from an immigrant family.
Anti-war sentiment in the West kept steadily rising, but Bush and
Blair were not deterred as they vowed to continue supporting joint military
operations. Brutal conduct of war, particularly the abuse of prisoners
was frequently reported. On 26th April, a rights group said that over 600 US
officials were accused of detainee abuse. The same day, a European Union
lawmaker supported the allegations that CIA had kidnapped and illegally
detained terror suspects on EU territory and flown them to countries that
used torture.
On 5th May, UNs top anti-torture body in Geneva opened first public
examination of the US governments record on torture since the start of war
on terror. Two weeks later, US forces admitted that four detainees in
Guantanamo attempted to commit suicide. The same day, UN committee
against torture told the US to close Guantanamo Bay facility which is in
violation of international law.
On 23rd May, Amnesty International said doublespeak by nations, like
the US and UK has undermined their war on terrorism and increased human
rights violations from Colombia to North Korea. There is evidence of
widespread torture in US detention centres. The United States outsources

263

torture to countries like Morocco, Jordan and Syria. Nothing can justify
torture or ill-treatment You cannot extinguish fire with petrol. Five days
later, London-based human rights group revealed that more than 60 minors,
some as young as 14, were held as prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Commenting on the issue, Los Angeles Times wrote, arguments of a
landmark Supreme Court case challenging President Bushs power to deal
with enemy combatants any way he sees fit, several justices appeared to be
allied with Osama bin Ladens former driver. That may be because the court
itself, and the nations judicial branch, seemed to be as much in the
governments cross hairs as any alleged terrorist.
The arguments before eight judges Chief Justice John G Roberts Jr
rescued himself because he ruled on this case while an appellate judge
exposed the cases procedural and jurisdictional complexities Did
Congress intend to impose its new limits on judicial review to case already
being litigated? Based on the tenor of their questions, a majority of the
justices appeared offended by the governments notion that Congress can
retroactively take away someones right to his day in court. Indeed, it is not
clear that Congress could do so under the Constitution, even for future
cases.
It is always dangerous to make assumptions about the outcome of a
case based on the justices questions. But it was heartening to hear a
majority of justices practically bristle at the governments assertion that the
court should have no say on the boundaries of presidential authority in this
war. The court should not allow the other two branches of government
to usurp its constitutional role.
Amidst bitter criticism on the US, Richard Cohen found an
opportunity to eulogize American values. It is nave, I know, but it would be
wonderful if the United States showed that as a matter of principle, it
does not take a life. It is nave because other governments would not follow
not right away, anyway. But in time, anything is possible and just as we,
bit by bit, have restricted the death penalty so that it is rarely imposed, so
may the rest of the world restrain its blood thirst. He tried to claim that
except America, rest of the world is blood-thirsty.
War has drifted away from the aim of defeating terror, as the Bush
Administration was focusing more on implementing its policy formulated
after the end of Cold War, e.g. checking emergence of a rival. Niall
Ferguson argued in favour of this policy goal. The neocons were mistaken
on Iraq, but that does not mean the nay-sayers on the left were correct
264

Would the world be safer if another country were as powerful as the United
States? They generally say no. Only the French say yes. Admittedly, the
Brits and Turks are evenly split, but a majority of Russians, Germans, and
even Jordanians, Moroccans and Pakistanis think the world would be less
safe with a second superpower. He clearly urged that the US must continue
pursuing its hegemonic policy.
Ansar Mahmood Bhatti wrote, regardless of the debate who loses and
who wins in the ongoing power game for the control of Central Asia, the
scrambling has at least exposed the duplicity of the West, as it backs
wholeheartedly and audaciously even the undemocratic regimes which have
the capability of carrying forward its agenda. But the countries which refuse
to knuckle under its pressure have to face its warmth. Elections, or for that
matter, a change of regimes, in such countries are always seen as flawed,
unfair and rigged by the Western world.
He added, this, by all means, is not a correct and judicious approach
and has led to diluting Wests repute in the eyes of the outer world besides
dealing a considerable blow to its credibility By this time everybody
should have understood that the US believes in a unipolar world in which
absolute power should rest with it only. This is strongly against the idea of
a multi-polar world.
Martin Jacques was of the view that Americas life of pre-eminence is
not immortal. It is clear that the US occupation of Iraq has been a
disaster from almost every angle one can think of, most of all for the Iraqi
people, not least for American foreign policy Triumphelism is a dangerous
brew, more suited to intoxication than hard-headed analysis. And so it has
proved. The US still has to reap the whirlwind for its stunning feat of
imperial overreach.
The promotion of the idea of war against terror as the central priority
of US policy had little to do with the actual threat posed by al-Qaeda,
which was always hugely exaggerated by the Bush Administration, as events
over the last four years have shown.
It will no longer be able to boss the world around in the fashion of
the neoconservative dream: its power to do so will be constrained by the
power of others, notably China, while it will also find it increasingly
difficult to fund the military and diplomatic costs of being the worlds sole
superpower.
We must remember that Britains majestic rule vanished in a few
short years, undermined by unforeseen catastrophic events and by new
265

threats that eventually overwhelmed the palisades of the past. The life of
pre-eminence, as with all life on this planet, has a mortal end.
M B Naqvi observed that American influence was slipping from its
zenith. Politically speaking, Americans are unpopular amongst all Muslim
and Arab countries, not excluding Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt,
Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia. This unpopularity is shared by ruling circles
as well as common people. The Americans are hated in all Arab lands at the
popular level. The mass demonstrations that the Europeans have organized
against American designs at different times tell a definitive story of mental
separation. World public opinion cannot be accused of being pro-American;
it is quite critical of American actions and designs. In addition, there is an
anti-war sentiment growing at home. It is true that it is centered on Iraq and
to a smaller extent Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East. But
nevertheless it is significant indicator of unrest in the home country As if
to add to Americans difficulties, the American hold over Latin America is
rapidly eroding. Today to say that South America is Americas backyard
would invite opposition from all Latinos.
This should not be construed to mean that Americans are finished and
their wishes and designs do not matter. They will remain an important factor
for a long time, sometime decisive. Only their pre-eminence will diminish;
opposition to their designs will grow. Since the Americans know the art of
spending their dollars judiciously, they can still call most of the shots in
many developing countries. After all, their military strength will continue to
be an important factor, even if popular notions of American prestige and
influence will continue to be seen as declining.

EUROPE AND CANADA

Europe remained on the offensive against Islamic militancy as was
evident from repeated blasphemous acts committed by its media, despite the
threat of Abu Yahia al-Libi, who escaped from Bagram prison camp, to
attack countries involved in publication of blasphemous cartoons. Half of
Dutch disliked Muslims according to a poll.
Blair did not falter in his loyalty to Bush. He said the madness of
anti-Americanism was threatening democracy world-wide. No terror-related
incident was reported during the period, except UK police hunt for suspected
dirty chemical bomb. However, across the Atlantic, twelve men and five

266

youths were arrested for plotting terrorist attacks in Ontario, Canada on 3 rd

June. All of them were Canadian Muslims from different backgrounds.

Blair had the distinction of being the most criticized leader of the
Europe for blindly following the reckless Yankee in his adventures. On
March 21, he delivered a speech to counter the criticism. This was billed by
the press as a defence of decisions made to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to
retrieve his diminishing popularity. Linda S Heard wrote, it might be. But
on the other hand, it could be an attempt at setting us up for an endless war
scenario in the name of defending our values.
Unlike his pal across the pond, he rarely trips over his words and
never purses his lips or sneers. Blair is also a master of self-deprecation and
gives the appearance of a boyish hand on heart honesty that is so easy to
fall for Blairs good guy outer faade is so perfected that people around
the world are genuinely bemused as to why he slavishly supports the Bush
Administrations misadventures.
The fact is Blair is a cross between a neoconservative and a
member of the religious right in Labours clothing even at a time when
many of the staunchest neoconservatives and their supporters are undergoing
a dramatic change of hearts themselves. Even Francis Fikuyama, a former
neocon, sometimes credited for writing an essay that sent Bush to war, is
saying mea culpa to any journalist who will listen. Blair, however, is as
passionate about the cause as ever.
Unless we articulate a common global policy based on common
values, we risk chaos threatening our stability, economic and political,
though letting extremism, conflict or injustice go unchecked, he says. What
he means, of course is that the world must adopt Western values or be
damned.
The consequences of this thesis is a policy of engagement not
isolation, and one that is active not reactive. This is the neoconservative
policy of pre-emption or first strike, which flouts provisions of the post
Second World War United Nations Charter Then playing good cop as
opposed to George Bushs jingoistic America first style evidenced by the
Presidents own speech made on the same day as Blair, the prime minister
says: I believe we will not ever get real support for the tough action that
may well be essential to safeguard our way of life
Blair was further masterful enough to empathise with the anger
felt by most in the Muslim World due to abandoned Middle East peace

267

process and says he understands the view of those who fail to perceive
Afghanistan and Iraq as success stories.
In the next breath, he claims that terrorism committed by Islamist
extremists is the result of a Madrassa-nurtured ideology that is being
exported around the world and proceeds to lump together Egypts Muslim
Brotherhood, Lebanons Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Chechen
militants and Iraqi insurgents, as though they are all components of one giant
anti-Western conspiracy.
Interestingly Blair brings Iran into the picture not because of its
alleged pursuance of a nuclear weapons programme but due to hypothetical
future links with al-Qaeda. True the conventional view is that, for
example, Iran is hostile to al-Qaeda and, therefore, would never support its
activities, says Blair before luridly adding: But as we know from our own
history of conflict, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change.
Fundamentally, for this ideology, we are the enemy Both Bush and Blair
have more synchronized speeches in the pipeline. So get ready to either
polish your anti-propaganda antenna or get a thick pair of ear-muffs.
A Rehman from Hyderabad added, in his speech, Blair places no
blame on Russia or India for their state terrorism, brutality and oppression in
Chechnya and Kashmir. There is no apology for the civilian casualties in
Iraq, the abuse of Iraqis by western troops, the political corruption of the
installed Iraqi regime and the descent of Iraq into civil war. There are no
apologies for the booming opium trade in Afghanistan, minimal
reconstruction and the worsening security situation under the Kara
government. All the problems are conveniently blamed on terrorism. does
he expect to win hearts and minds by branding all resistance to occupation
as terrorism.
The News published an article of Tony Blair, written for the purpose
mentioned above, in which tried to weave a noble mask to cover the evil
face. There is universal agreement now that the characteristic of the modern
world is independence. But we havent yet had time to think through its
consequences or understand that the international rulebook has been
ripped up Interdependence the fact of a crisis somewhere makes a
mockery of traditional views of national interest. Nations, even as large
and powerful as the US, are now affected profoundly and at breakneck speed
by events beyond their borders.
You cant have a coherent view of national interest today without a
coherent view of the international community. These challenges affect us all
268

and can only be effectively tackled together. And we cant wait around to see
how these global challenges may develop as we could in the past. The
above lines were preamble, the mask of nobility, which could not cover his
evil intent, as he proceeded to justify the ongoing illegal and immoral war on
the often repeated flimsy justifications.
Europe gradually started demanding the closure of Guantanamo
facility. Neil Stormer wrote, the hearts and minds have been lost, and
Americas tarnished image will require more than a few kind words and
good intentions to be rehabilitated. Actions speak louder than words, and the
world needs to see positive actions by the US to demonstrate that American
leaders abide by the tenets of democracy, freedom and human rights that
they espouse.
A step away from hollow rhetoric and towards embodying those
ideals would be to close the detention centre at the US Guantanamo Bay
Naval Centre, where most of the prisoners have been held without being
charged for more than three years. Whatever benefits the Bush
Administration believes it is receiving from maintaining Gitmo as a
detention centre; it is past time to close the facility.
He added, a strong argument can be made that it should have never
been used in the first place. This lack of credibility, and the subsequent
damage to Americas reputation, is further demonstrated by the increasing
evidence that the prisoners in Guantanamo are, in many cases, the wrong
guys Though characterized by administration officials as people who
have vowed to kill more Americans if released, many of those released thus
far have been young, innocent or insignificant.
Finally, while calls for closing Guantanamo were first issued sharply
after it was opened, the roster of names now pressing the US to close it
include some of its strongest allies, including German Chancellor Angela
Merkel and British Prime Minister.
Neil Stormer while arguing for the closure of Gitmo had started with
rendition of prisoners. European Union leaders recognize what
American leaders have chosen to ignore: maintaining secretive detention
facilities is contrary to the tenets of democracy and freedom the West is
promoting as the panacea for the Middle East. Furthermore, reports of abuse
and allegations of torture at these dark facilities alienate and infuriate the
very people the West purportedly aims to help.

269

Jonathan Freedland wrote about Britains double standard on the

issue. Straw was asked whether he supported the US governments refusal
to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to some
detainees held as part of the war on terror. Condi at his side, he answered:
We are not the worlds superpower, and with those responsibilities, we
acted a little differently. Its worth reading that sentence closely, for in it
Straw implies a new doctrine: superpower exceptionalism. It holds that
certain humanitarian norms apply to everyone, except the reigning
superpower, which is allowed to do things a little differently.
Reid argued that the current architecture of international law
including the Geneva Conventions was designed in the postwar era, and a
world in which conflict was solely between states. Today, said Reid, the
reality is different: some of the most lethal players are not states, but
organizations bent on terror. We cannot be hamstrung in our battle
against such forces by a rulebook thats badly out of date.
Indeed most experts in the field agree that the situation is, legally
speaking, quite straightforward. Faced with terrorists, states can either
class them as warriors, who would then be held as prisoners of war, with all
the Geneva protections. Or they can decide they are criminals, to be treated
by the normal process of law. Even the men picked up in Afghanistan, and
now rotting in Guantanamo, could have been placed in either of these
categories, rather than held to constitute a whole new category unlawful
combatants and then duly plunged into a legal black hole.
Europes real concern pertained to its difficulties in coping with
presence of large number of Muslim immigrants in the Continent.
Salama A Salama explained the nature of problem, from immigrants point
of view, by quoting Syrian-born Austrian, who represents a civil rights group
defending foreigners. Were facing the threat of classification. If youre a
Muslim, then youre considered a radical or a secular, a moderate or a
fundamentalist. And depending on the rating you get, youd be considered
for residence or immigration. Your entire chance to work and integrate
depends on your rating.
Over the past few years, clashes and violence have become common
in Europe. Disturbances in Parisian suburbs, attacks on coloured people and
foreigners in Germany, the killing of a Dutch director of a movie believed to
be hostile to Islam are all pieces of a larger jigsaw puzzle. Since the Danish
cartoons, Europe has been enforcing strict security measures and
debating stiff immigration and naturalization laws.
270

Of course the media has a role to play, and it may even be to blame
for provoking fears and widening the gap between Muslim communities
and Europe. This was particularly true in the crisis of the cartoons, when
European media maintained that freedom of expression takes precedence
over other freedoms, including that of faith.
Mention has been made about blasphemous cartoons in the
context of imposing strict security measures. This was one of the aims of
publishing the caricatures; to first instigate violent reaction and then clamp
the immigrants. Flemming Rose in interview to Der Spiegel justified
publishing cartoons almost on the same grounds, without saying it clearly.
He said, its time for the Old Continent to face facts and make some
profound changes in its outlook on immigration, integration and the
coming Muslim demographic surge. After decades of appeasement and
political correctness, combined with growing fear of a radical minority
prepared to commit serious violence, Europes moment of truth is here.
On these counts, Europes left is deceiving itself the same way we
young hippies deceived ourselves about Marxism and communism 30 years
ago. It is a narrative of confrontation and hierarchy that claims that the West
exploits, abuses, and marginalizes the Islamic World. Left-wing intellectuals
have insisted that the Danes were oppressing and marginalizing Muslim
immigrants. Strangely, he chose to publish the cartoons to prove that these
accusations were wrong.
This kind of thinking gave birth to a distorted approach to
immigration in countries like Denmark. Left-wing commentators decided
that Denmark was both racist and Islamophobic. Therefore, the chief
obstacle to integration was not the immigrants unwillingness to adapt
culturally to their adopted countryit was the countrys inherent racism and
anti-Muslim bias. The cult of victimology arose and was happily
exploited The blasphemous act was by itself a violent reaction to the
criticism of Danes, part of which had been substantiated by ground realities.
The role of victim is very convenient because it frees the selfdeclared victim from any responsibility, while providing a posture of
moral superiority. It also obscures certain inconvenient facts that might
suggest a different explanation for the lagging integration of some
immigrant groups He took upon him to turn the self-declared victims
into genuine victims.

271

Another great impediment to integration is the European welfare

state. Because Europes highly developed, but increasingly unaffordable,
safety nets provide such strong unemployment insurance and not enough
incentive to work, many new immigrants go straight onto the dole.
A nostalgic longing for cultural purity easily descends into ethnic
cleansing. Yet multiculturalism that has all too often become mere cultural
relativism is an indefensible proposition that often justifies reactionary and
oppressive practices.
Giving the same weight to the illiberal values of conservative Islam
as to the liberal traditions of the European Enlightenment will, in time,
destroy the very things that make Europe such a desirable target for
immigration. Europe must shed the straitjacket of political correctness,
which makes it impossible to criticize minorities for anything including
violations of laws, traditional mores and values that are central to the
European experience.
Equal treatment is the democratic way to overcome traditional
barriers of blood and soil for newcomers. To me, that means treating
immigrants just as I would any other Dane. And thats what I felt I was
doing in publishing the 12 cartoons Most of the European media agreed
with Flemmings viewpoint as was indicated in the show of solidarity by
republishing the cartoons.
I was sending an important message: You are not strangers, you are
here to stay, and we accept you as an integrated part of our life. And we will
satirize you, too. It was an act of inclusion, not exclusion; an act of respect
and recognition. He chose to start his satire-campaign by paying respect to
the Holy Prophet (PBUH), rather than choosing a cleric from his country or
the neighbouring countries.
Rose adopted method of intolerance to impart tolerance to in
Muslims, which has become a routine teaching method in the ongoing clash
of civilizations. The Crusaders desire to reform Islam is no secret. They
have been openly dictating Muslim rulers as to what parts of Islam should be
taught their people.
Nina Shea discussed the issue in the context of Saudi Arabia. A 2004
Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the
kingdoms religious studies curriculum encourages violence toward
others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard
their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate

272

the other. Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it
has revised its educational texts.
These claims are not true. A review of a sample of official Saudi
textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals
that, despite the Saudi governments statements to the contrary, an ideology
of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow
Wahabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system.
This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and
expanded each year, culminating in a 12 th grade text instructing students that
their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to
spread the faith.
Scholars estimate that within the Saudi public school curriculum,
Islamic studies make up a quarter to a third of students weekly classroom
hours in lower and middle school, plus several hours each week in high
school. Educators who question or dissent from the official interpretation
of Islam can face severe reprisals.
Muslims find it hard to adjust to the concept of family in vogue in the
civilized world. Despite all the social ills prevailing in their societies; they
cherish man-woman relations as taught by almost all religions and reject
what is in vogue in the West, which undermines the age-old established
institution of family, the very foundation of the society.
The Crusaders spokesman in Pakistan, Chris Cork endeavoured to
reject this argument. He said that it is utter nonsense to say that family is
disappearing in the western countries and marriage is in terminal decline.
He quoted figures relating to UK. The proportion of children born to single
or unmarried women in partnerships has risen from 12 percent in 1980 to 42
percent in 2004, with 58 percent of children still born within wedlock. He
used these figures to support his contention, but most people outside the
civilized world, Muslims or non-Muslims, would use these figures in
support of their argument. No eastern society would accept 42 percent
HARAMZADAS amongst it.
The rise in births outside marriage is a reflection of the rising trend in
cohabitation; but marriage is far from dead as an institution Marriage
rates have certainly declined in the last fifty years overall, and compared to
the 1950s there are now 25 percent fewer marriages but five times as many
divorces every year and the numbers of first marriages has halved since
1970 whereas remarriages, post-divorce, have doubled.

273

On the basis of above figures and comments, he claimed; family life

is alive and well across the western nations, it just has a different shape and
culture to that in the east. Wests support for womens emancipation in the
East is aimed at bringing the family life in the same shape in which it is
alive and well in the West.
The meanest part of the approach to reform Muslim societies has
been the old habit of ridiculing Islam and its followers for which the
deranged Muslim-turned non-believers like Rushdie are picked and
patronized. The latest pick has been Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The Readers Digest generally avoids publishing controversial
subjects because of its wide circulation in all parts of the world. But since
the beginning of Western medias onslaught against Islam as part of the
ongoing Crusades, it could not resist participation in the holy act. Ayaan
Hirsi Ali was named as Readers Digest European of the Year 2006 for
her meritorious services in demonizing Islam.
She participated in a television programme about Islamic Sharia law
in 2003 and ended up contributing much more than her opinion on
Islam and its treatment of women If only people were aware of the
sheer number of the girls living in terror, says Hirsi Ali. Just going outside
without your father or your brothers permission can lead to your being
taken to the home country of your parents and being shot dead. You can be
forced into marriage with someone whos going to rape you every night. You
will conceive children year after year when you dont want to be
pregnant
She campaigns on both a political and a personal level, and she does
so in the face of extreme personal danger. In November 2004, a fanatic
ritually murdered her friend Theo Van Goghand a chillingly menacing
letter to Hirsi Ali pinned to his chest with a knife. Wish for death if you are
really convinced you are right it read.
Hirsi Ali was whisked away from public view for 75 days, spending
time at a secret location in the US. But she would not be silenced. She
returned to parliament, a small, elegantly dressed figure dwarfed by
round-the-clock police protection officers, and continued to speak out.
The magazine wrote about his migration to Holland as narrated by her
and taken as gospel truth. The cases of Muslim womens plight as told by
Hirsi were quoted. Some cases were horrifying. A teenage girl, raped by her
half brother who also abused her sister and his own wife was married off

274

to a cousin Others she met had restored to back-street clinics for abortions
or makeshift surgery to restore their virginity, often lost through rape or
incest. Otherwise they risked being married off to any man prepared to
accept them or becoming the victim of an honour killing
She became more outspoken still after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 in New York One day in a brasserie opposite the
parliament building in The Hague, a young man came up to her and said:
Madam, I hope the Mujahedin find you and kill you. Hirsi Ali handed him
her butter knife. Why dont you do it yourself? She challenged. He backed
off.
Her other achievements described by the magazines were: making it
more difficult for new Muslim schools, sometimes hotbeds of
fundamentalism, to get state funding; work for banning female circumcision;
legislation for medical check-up of Muslim girls; and her pledge to make a
sequel to Submission.
Whether the story was fabricated or not, it allowed Readers Digest to
shed some tears on hundreds of imagined rapes of Muslim women every
night and then gleefully blaming Islam for that. It is worth noting that the
way she has been protected from harm like a most valuable treasure. She
belongs to the class of Rushedi and therefore had to be protected, because
Islam can be demonized better by statements and acts of perverted men and
women with Muslim names. Another aspect of the presentation was that the
article on Hirsi was jeweled with brief caption titled Tolerant Europe.
Hasan Suroor enumerated the credentials of Hirsi Ali, which helped
her to rise to fame in civilized world. The Dutch government promptly
granted her asylum when she landed in the Netherlands in 1992 claiming
that she had fled Somalia to escape from a forced marriage. Five years later,
she even got a Dutch passport and the ultra-right VVD party (Peoples Party
for Freedom and Democracy) was so impressed by her anti-Muslim
immigrant rhetoric that it embraced her in its own campaign against
immigration, and in 2003 she was elected to Parliament on its ticket.
She became a celebrity for her relentless attacks on Islam and
Muslim immigrants whom she blamed for social tensions in the Netherlands,
her country of adoption. Ms Alis celebrity status increased after a film
she wrote on abuse of Muslim women, Submission, in which verses from
the Quran were painted on naked bodies, led to the murder of its director
Theo Van Gogh

275

More stardom followed when, earlier this year, she stood up for
the right of a Dutch newspaper to publish Prophet Muhammads cartoons
and criticized European governments for to quote The Times not
standing up for Western values against Islam.
Hasan Suroor went on to narrate facts collected by him about Hirsi
Ali. Last week things started to unravel for the 36-year-old charismatic
demagogue after a Dutch television documentary revealed that she had
concocted her life story in order to gain asylum in the Netherlands. And
as a media storm broke after the documentary was screened and her party
prepared to abandon her, Ms Ali sought to preempt her expulsion from
country by announcing that she was moving to America to take up an
assignment with a neo-con think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.
According to the documentary, which features interviews with her
relatives, Ms Alis entire story was based on a series of lies. This
included her name, which she changed from Ayaan Hisri Magan to Ayaan
Hisri Ali, and her date and year of birth. The most damaging revelation
relates to her claim that she fled Somalia because she was trapped in a
forced marriage and faced persecution.
The documentary quotes her family members, including a brother, as
saying that she had been actually living in Kenya at the time she decided to
leave for the Netherlands; and that her marriage to a Somalian, who now
reportedly lives in Canada, was not forced. They said the couple separated
amicably. The documentary showed what reports described as a large and
comfortable middle class home in Kenya where she lived in an affluent
style a far cry from her own fictional account of her circumstances.
Ms Ali admitted that she had lied but dismissed the row as a
smear campaign Have they all gone mad? Yes, I lied to get asylum in
Holland. This is public knowledge since at least September 2002, she said.
But clearly her own party which is in government did not.
The Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, who belongs to VVD,
said she would order an inquiry into Ms Alis conduct declaring that laws
and rules are valid for everyone. Media reports say that the disclosure has
sent shockwaves through the Dutch political establishment because, as The
Guardian noted, Ms Ali had become one of the countrys most
prominent politicians after denouncing radical Islam. With her Muslim
background, which she has renounced, Ms Hirsi Ali was an influential figure
as the Netherlands debated the integration of Muslim immigrants.

276

The row is particularly embarrassing for VVD, which regards its

tough anti-immigration stance as its USP. It supports deportation of failed
asylum-seekers and has proposed that any foreigner who may have lied
about his or her background should be banned from being given a Dutch
passport. Having used Ms Alis opportunist position on immigration for
its own purposes, VVD now finds her a political liability. There have
been calls for Ms Ali to be stripped of her citizenship and deported back to
where she came from (was it Somalia or Kenya?).
Hasan Suroor concluded: But whatever might be in store for her, the
episode says something about the prevailing climate in Europe where all
that someone from the Third World needs in order to find political
acceptability is to be sufficiently xenophobic. And if they are Muslim, a
healthy dose of Islamophobia might just add a dash of glamour at a time
when a liberal, free-thinking Muslim is seen to be an endangered species.
Tough luck if they run out to be fake.
She is undoubtedly a clever and ambitious woman, who correctly read
the Christian worlds anti-Islam sentiment and chalked out a plan to exploit
that and to rise to the fame. She must have realized that during her schooling
in Nairobi. She fooled everyone that came across her and civilized peoples
anti-Islam mindset made her task easier.
But, despite the revelations, her anti-Islam services could not be
ignored by the staunch supporters of the ongoing Crusades. The New York
Times welcomed beleaguered Hirsi Ali to America. In the script of Mr van
Goghs film, Submission, and in her speeches and books including The
Caged Virgin, which has just been published here Ms Hirsi Ali has been
an unflinching advocate of womens rights and an critic of Islamic
extremism. Her life has been threatened, and she is still in real danger. Ayaan
Hirsi Ali, whose real name is Ayaan Hirsi Magan, says she plans to leave the
Netherlands for the Unites States. She should be welcomed here under
either name. Name is immaterial as long it bears Islamic touch and the
person is a staunch anti-Islam.
Isabella Thompson passed the blame to critics of the liar. Hisri Ali
certainly lied, but the exploitation of that lie by her detractors has been
outrageous. The rules (and prejudices) surrounding asylum do not cater for
female refugees fleeing the will of a family. They are designed for those
fleeing a government or a war. Her father had arranged her marriage to a
distant cousin. Though she refused to turn up at the ceremony, the family
signed the documents and she became legally married.

277

Others are determined to discredit her for her atheism, her

rejection of Islam and her exposure of the way Muslim women are often
forced to submit to their men. But why, Hirsi Ali might ask, is it so difficult
to forgive a falsified asylum application and so easy to ignore the abuses
daily suffered by immigrant women?

MUSLIMS
Muslim rulers have surrendered to the military might of Crusaders. It
is almost impossible to get them out of the deep hole of fear in which they
have dug themselves in. The people of Muslim World understand their plight
and therefore do not expect them to fight the Crusades, but they do expect
that they should at least speak out against some of the aspects of the
horrendous war.
While ducking deep in their respective holes, it is impossible for them
to see themselves; therefore, they should at least listen to what the people
say the world over. The aspects on which the Muslim masses want them to
speak are many, but herein only those are mentioned which came under
discussion during the period, and some of those which have been established
beyond doubt and hurt the Ummah badly.
First of all they must speak, and speak loudly, that the ongoing war is
Crusades against Muslims, rather than accepting it as war on terror. It is
futile to ask for definition of terrorism after four-and-a-half-year of
bloodshed. The definition has been made amply clear by the Crusaders
through pursuit of biased, illegal and immoral war. Anything and everything
which is against the interests of the civilized world is considered terrorism.
They should voice the concerns over terrorism against Muslims
perpetrated by various states as pointed out by the News. Pakistani
ambassador to the UN called for an international anti-terrorism centre so that
terrorism could be dealt with under an institutional framework. Endorsing a
Saudi proposal for such a body, Mr Munir Akram said until there was a
clear, legal definition of terrorism, some governments would continue to
circumscribe the scope of terrorist actions, by seeking, in particular, to
exclude thereality of state terrorism.
The Crusaders with their present mindset will resist a definition which
encompasses state terrorism, because in any definition America and its band
of allies will emerge as true model of terrorism. Thus, instead of seeking a

278

definition, they must listen to the observers like Patrick Seale which could
help them to understand the designs of the Crusaders.
An extraordinary paradox of the current international scene is that the
most powerful countries in the world are also the most afraid and fear has
caused them to lose their senses Globally, the United States has no
immediate military rival Similarly, in terms of military power, Israel has
no challenger in a vast region from Central Asia, across the Arab World, to
northeast and central Africa And yet the US and Israel behave as if they
are about to be attacked by a formidable enemy. They scold and threaten,
huff and puff, flex their muscles and brandish their weapons as if facing an
imminent danger to their very existence.
Instead of putting their formidable power to work reducing tensions
and resolving conflicts as they should be doing they go about stoking the
fires of anger and hate, apparently unaware that the destabilization they
cause must in due course engulf them too.
Demonization and vilification, international isolation, sanctions,
boycotts and military strikes, these are just some of the policies and threats
directed at both Iran and Hamas. Not daring to stand up for its own values,
the European Union has shamefully joined in the pressure
Enormously powerful and yet paranoid with fear, the US and Israel
act as if the possession and indeed the use of overwhelming force is the only
guarantee of their security. Dialogue and diplomacy, mutual accommodation,
the search for a balance of power, the mediation of international institutions
all these traditional instruments for conflict resolution have been
discarded and, as a result, the world has become a very dangerous place.
Muslim rulers keep demanding accommodation and tolerance from
their own people and keep begging for dialogue with those who have
discarded it and opted for the use of military means. It should be other way
round; they should have dialogue with own people and ask the Crusaders to
show tolerance.
Instead of seeking the definition of terrorism, they should speak
against war crimes committed by the Crusaders. If prisoner abuse and
Bushs unwillingness to admit that he made many mistake, could influence
Francis Fukuyama to change his mind on war, the Muslim rulers should
have done that long time back.
They should listen to Mahvish Khan, American-born Afghan woman,
who worked as interpreter with Peter Ryan. They visited Guantanamo Bay
279

nine times after Supreme Court held that the US court system had authority
to decide whether non-US citizens at that facility were being rightfully
imprisoned. She said, over three months, Ive interpreted at dozens of
meetings with detainees and heard many stories of betrayal and mistaken
identity, of beatings and torture, of loneliness and hopelessness.
No matter the age or background of the detainee, our meetings
always leave me feeling helpless. These men show me the human face of the
war on terrorism. Theyve been systematically dehumanized, cast as mere
numbers in prison-camp fashion. But to me, theyve become almost like
friends, or brothers or fathers. I can honestly say that I dont believe any of
our clients are guilty of crimes against the United States. No doubt some
men here are, but not the men Ive met.
I wish we could just hand our clients the freedom they desperately
crave, but so far, we havent been able to do Entire leadership in 50-plus
Islamic states has been more helpless than Mahvish Khan. She could at least
speak for the innocent detainees in Guantanamo, but Muslim leaders have
not dared doing that.
Shireen M Mazari expressed her disgust after the recent incident of
killings in Kabul. And now we have this incident where an American
armoured vehicle rammed into cars in a traffic jam in Kabul. Clearly, the
only way one can ram into cars in a traffic jam is to be driving totally
recklessly with no regard for anyone else. This is reflective of the growing
arrogance one finds in Americans in terms of their attitude towards Iraqis
and Afghans in particular and Muslims in general.
There are continuing reports of American abuse of Iraqi prisoners and
despite that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has again said that
dogs will continue to be used in Iraqi prisons. New reports also point to
the deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by the US forces in locations other
than Fallujah. And, now there are reports that many of those incarcerated in
Guantanamo Bay were taken prisoner when they were still minors. Yet the
wise rulers in Islamic World keep talking of building bridges between
Muslim World and the West.
It is also this American attitude that has upped the ante over Iran,
with the US least bothered about its non-accommodative and
discriminatory approach towards Iran as contrasted with its conciliatory
approach towards North Korea where dialogue is seen as the way forward to
conflict resolution.

280

The conceit one presently finds among the neocons is not restricted
to the Bush Administration only. Recently, a member of the American
Enterprise Institute was in Malaysia holding forth on what moderate and
progressive Islam should be. Clearly, dialogue is not possible with the
Americans because their arrogance only allows a monologue. Anything
else they regard as unhelpful, if not totally unacceptable.
At the end of the day, it is the average long-suffering Muslim citizens
who continue to suffer the costs of war on terror, where they are victims
twice over from the extremists in their midst who violate their lives and
their religion and from the Americans who care not a hoot for their
aspirations as they occupy their lands. And then they are also caught in
the crossfire of the Americans and those who, for whatever reason, choose to
fight their occupation and/or their presence on their soil. As the incident in
Kabul showed clearly, this is a battle in which the main casualty is the
average person in the streets.
For those rulers who tend not to listen to what Muslim men and
women say, Kamran Shafi produced a short excerpt from a message written
by a 23-year-old American, probably a soldier serving in Iraq. I am
ashamed. Im ashamed of this president, this megalo-maniac hell-bent on
leaving his print on the map of the Middle East, no matter how much
destruction is wrought and no matter how much blood flows in the streets of
lands that never threatened us. Im ashamed that when I see the American
flag waving, images of flag-draped coffins flash in my mind. Im ashamed
of Freedoms March. Ashamed when I see villages reduced to rubble.
He continued, ashamed when I see the tiny little corpses. God,
theyre so painfully tiny lined up in a row, little angels wrapped in
colourful blankets that starkly contrast against their grey-tinged faces.
Ashamed when I see wailing Iraqis slam their hands against plain,
unvarnished coffins, over an over, asking Why? Is this democracy? Why?
When I see those images of funerals, of broken families, I want to crawl into
my TV, I want to go to them and grab their slumped shoulders and scream,
Im sorry, good God, Im sorry. I want to leave, I want us to leave, believe
me. But they wont listen No one listens any more.
One feels that it would have been more appropriate if this message
was addressed to rulers in Islamic countries rather than the president of
America. The rulers and the state-controlled media have kept running
account of the brave American soldiers killed in the war on terror, but they

281

feel ashamed of counting the children and women killed by them and their
allies in Muslim World.
They are not ashamed of allying or partnering with megalo-maniac
who is perpetrating death and destruction in Muslim World. Or, may be they
are so ashamed that they have lost their speech, yet despite the dumbness
they keep clinging to their thrones.
In the same context, it is more important that they, in their exuberance
to prove their sincerity to the commitment to war on terror, do not indulge
in committing excesses against their own people. The News wrote,
what 9/11 and the war against terror have done is to blur the line between
involvement in an act of terrorism and expressing support of sympathy of
the countries involved in the anti-terror effort have used the campaign to
expand the monitoring and surveillance of their own citizens, and this has
caused the human rights of the latter to be severely abridged.
Besides, US-orchestrated military action, especially in countries
where al-Qaeda operatives are suspected of hiding, has led to much
resentment against the US and its allies because many innocent lives have
been lost. This has only increased worldwide opposition to US policies and
served to place at greater risk the governments of those countries allied with
Washington. Governments should not allow themselves, as a consequence of
their involvement in the war against terror, to commit brutalities and rights
violations.
It is not the question of bridging the gap between two civilizations.
It is the tolerance, which the West lacks badly while blaming Muslims for
intolerance. Abdul Razaq al-Mudhrib opined that the East-West gap, in view
of the prevalent attitude, cannot be closed.
The West strongly believes in Clash of Civilizations theory in
which the Islamic civilization is a strong candidate for a clash with the
Western civilization The Wests condescending and world-dominating
attitude, may explain why it sometimes ignores good manners and hurts the
feelings of millions of Arabs and Muslims.
It has become very easy to brand millions as retards and terrorists,
and offend them by abusing their religion, all on the pretext of freedom of
speech Another obstacle is the disagreement on the importance of the
religion. For Arabs and Muslims, religion is considered an untouchable
issue, while this is not the case in the West.

282

The problem with our dialogue with the West is that it is confined to
the elite of both sides, such as academicians and researchers. The common
man does not know about it, or benefit from its outcome, thus, the gap
between East and West remains.
Muslim rulers have been rejecting the false linkage between terrorism
and Islam meekishly, whereas the Crusaders have been vehemently accusing
Muslims of intolerance. Ihtesham Kayani from Rawalpindi pointed out, on
March 21, in a press conference, British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke a
few words about history and showered praise on early Muslims, who despite
having knowledge and power, were more tolerant towards others religions.
During the speech, he disdainfully used the term Wahabi extremism
which, as far as he knows, is the root cause of all ills the world is facing
today and thereby needs to be eliminated.
Arab News wrote, the Manila conference participants agreed that
terrorism should not be linked to any religion. That is good in theory, but the
stark reality of today is that more often than not, terrorism, in the minds of
non-Muslims, is automatically linked to Muslims.
The very sight of Qazi Hussein Ahmed may not be pleasing for
enlightened moderate rulers, but he must be heard dispassionately. He said
Washington deems Islam a stumbling block in the way of its New
World Order, seeking to penetrate American civilization in social,
education and economic body fabric of the Muslim World.
The West has been cleverly using the ploy of democracy to extend
and consolidate its hold on Muslim World. America and other Crusaders are
building a corporate empire using promotion of democracy and war on terror
as pretexts. Osama in his new audiotape released in April said the same thing
with reference shunning of the Hamas-led Palestinian government.
He was of the view, rightly so; that it showed the West was waging a
Crusade-Zionist war on Muslims. He also said that it was wrong to assume
that only some Western leaders were responsible for this. People in the
West equally share responsibility for their countries war against Islam.
The war is a responsibility shared between the people and the
governments. The war goes on and the people renewing their allegiance to
its rulers and masters. They send their sons to armies to fight us and they
continue their financial and moral support while our countries are burned
and our houses are bombed and our people are killed.

283

Their desire to build an empire is nowhere near the fulfillment. The

rulers in Islamic World should be aware of and must voice concerns
about future designs of the Crusaders. Bush has been listening to Osama
threat carefully for the same reason, which makes it obligatory for the rulers
in Muslim World to listen to the Crusaders equally carefully.
The people expect that Crusaders empire building venture must be
resisted physically. But, that seems to be an impossible mission for the
frightened rulers. Those who themselves have been foisted upon the
Muslim countries by the US in the first place are not capable of defending
us against it said Farooq Sulehria.
He added, This does not in any way imply that the Empire should
not be resisted. It does not take nuclear weapons, armies and angels to resist
the US. The once formidable Soviet Union had nuclear weapons but that did
not prevent it from collapsing.
Muslim rulers in general and Arabs in particular have neglected the
need for defence against external aggression; despite having abundant
resources to maintain sufficient forces. The reason, perhaps the only reason,
is that Arab rulers have been prone to military coups and therefore instead
of indigenous defence capability, they have been preferring security
assurances, security pacts, and even presence of foreign troops on their
soils. These arrangements were considered as safer option.
They never realized that these arrangements facilitate empire
building as they forestalled emergence of any viable threat to the West in
various regions of their interest. Adel Saftys pointed towards documents
aimed at providing blueprint for the post Cold War era; authored by
Wolfowitz and titled, Prevent the Emergence of a New Rival.
Both documents provide an authoritative and clear exposition of
official American thinking about how America must shape the post Cold War
era. First, the policy planners argue that the unique position of the US as
the only superpower left after the collapse of the Soviet Union must be
preserved against all challenges from anywhere in the world:
To this end, the first political and military objective of the US in the
new world order must be to prevent the emergence of a new rival,
either in the territory of the former USSR or elsewhere.
Second, the policy planners argue that American domination of the
new world order must be clear, unequivocal and American leadership
strong and assertive, if America is to maintain its supremacy
284

unchallenged. The US must therefore strive to convince potential

competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role in the new
world order.
Third, the US has become the only power capable of enforcing
respect for the establishment order. While it may not wish to act as a
policeman redressing every wrong, it will decide which wrongs may
be overlooked which transgressions must be redressed by force if
necessary.
Last but not the least is the need to counter media offensive
launched by the West to demonize Islam and its followers. Ramzy Baroud
has been emphasizing on this aspect relentlessly. In March he wrote about
Western medias role in dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.
Despite the fact that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the most reported
media story on earth, it is the least understood, seemingly the least rational,
and most certainly one with the least potential to be resolved. The medias
skewed narrative makes the conflict an end in itself; it creates a status
quo that is most suitable for Israels colonial policies and least desirable for
Palestinians, who are silently or so it seems losing their land, their
livelihood and any prospect of freedom, let alone their refugees right to
return.
Israels impact on the media, however, has metamorphosed
throughout the years, from that seeking to influence to the one doing its own
molding of public opinion. Israels dedicated media friends, from the New
York Times to the British Telegraph are perhaps the largest and by far the
most influential interest groups in the media anywhere around the world, a
fact that they often rebuff. But the facts are too apparent to deny.
Many are already familiar with the special ties between the United
States and Israel, which arguably allowed the latter to steer the foreign
policy of the greatest democracy on earth into the Middle East political
abyss. But most might not be aware of the fact that the media is largely
responsible for manufacturing that special relationship. In fact, US
interests in the Middle East be they political, economic, i.e. strategic
have been greatly hampered
But what has in fact magnified the impact of the Israeli lobby and its
influence in the media whose work on behalf of Israel goes well beyond the
Middle East to cover Africa, Asia, Latin America, and of course, Washington
itself, also described as the other occupied territory by a former US

285

Congressman. He added that the pitiable and most disorganized response

of Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs made the task of western media
easier.
The result has been catastrophic. Israels decades-long quest to
bolster its media image has done wonders as American public opinion either
sees Israel as a lone defender of democracy amid uncivilized Arab polities or
not at all aware of the facts, basing its inane understanding of Middle East
politics on half-truths that see Arabs as irrational, lazy and inherently
violent.
I am afraid that many Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are
themselves content with the status quo and are the least interested in
reversing their misfortune or appreciating the immense impact of the media
on politics, wars and indeed peace. There is an overall inclination that
associates media bias with racial categorization always the easy answer to
all enigmas which is usually followed by a shoulder shrug and the
defeatist impression that all is lost, an echo of the same defeatist
sentiment that has accompanied the Arab-Israel conflict since its inception.
However all is not lost, for even the most focused misinformation can
be reversed, no matter how humble the initiative, how modest the resources.
I have said so for many years and many have said it before me and many
will continue to echo the same idea: With all due respect its media, stupid.
And if one is foolish enough to neglect its import, then maybe one
deserves to be burned by its fire.
Two professors of Harvard University and the University of Chicago,
John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt expressed views similar to Ramzy
Baroud. Their paper led pro-Israelis in the US to do everything they could
to keep the lid on that can of worms unopened. In fact, the two authors could
only find a respectable British magazine to carry a shortened version after
the American publisher had recanted, wrote George Hishmeh.
The two professors wrote, the centerpiece of US Middle East policy
has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support
for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region
has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized US security.
Hishmeh added, what they found puzzling is the fact that the United
States has been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance
the interest of another state.
They attributed the overall thrust of US policy in the region almost
entirely to US domestic politics and especially to the activities of the Israel
286

lobby. They credited the Israeli lobby for managing to divert US foreign
policy as far from the American national interest would otherwise suggest,
while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israel interests are
essentially identical.
In the context of resistance to occupation of Muslim lands, the West
has been haunted by the suicide bombers. Western media had been
portraying it as barbaric and the governments have been working overtime
to secure Fatwa declaring suicide attacks as un-Islamic. Having failed to
achieve that, the intellectuals have joined hands to demonize this threat.
Madeleine Bunting attributed it to the restrictive nature of Islamic
teachings. She wrote, the psychology of suicide bombers is one of the most
puzzling issues for westerners to grasp: the religious motivation, the
fearlessness of death and the calmness-banality, even-with which many of
these people approach their end leave most westerners bewildered. The
comment of the 9/11 bombers that has proved the most haunting is: You
love life; we love death.
The analyst was convinced about another dimension of the suicide
bombing put across by Professor Richard Bulliet of Columbia University. He
attributed it to the severe sexual frustration of youth in restrictive Islamic
societies. This amply clarifies the extent to which the Crusaders can go to
achieve their evil designs.
Nothing of the above can be done unless Muslim countries
demonstrate the unity of Ummah. That has remained elusive even in
times when it was required the most. On 20th may, while visiting Egypt,
Shaukat Aziz accepted that Muslim World lacks unity. Who is to be blamed
for that? Not the Muslim masses.
Listen to what Gulf News says about another Islamic country.
Tehrans Gulf neighbours have all the reasons to worry about its
intentions. It is true all countries have the right to peaceful nuclear
technology, and it is also true Iran maintains it will never seek to develop
nuclear weapons, but who can guarantee this position will not change in the
Future? The editor indirectly requested the Crusaders for the guarantee,
because Arabs lack the ability to secure that.
It is also a blow to the efforts of Arab countries to free the Middle
East of weapons of mass destruction. In addition to Israel, there is now Iran,
which can transform its peaceful programme into a military oriented one if
they so choose. The Arab Muslim brothers equate Iranian Muslims with

287

the Jewish state. The fact is that Israel has made the life of Arabs miserable
and none of them has the guts to challenge the perpetrator of the terror,
whereas Iran has been challenging Israel on this count, but that has been
insultingly ignored by equating Iran with Israel.
The daily newspaper added, one way to allay regional fears is to
allow the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
unhindered access to all nuclear sites. Also, Iranian authorities need to work
with the agency to ensure the highest international safety standards are
applied at those sites.
The Arabs have failed to end their miseries. While commenting on
Arab Summit in early May, Mohammad Ekif Jamal said, ever since the first
summit was held in Cairo in 1964, Arab summits have not come out with
any firm and pragmatic decisions. Worse, they have failed to arrive at a
unified Arab stand concerning issues affecting the Arabs. The summits have
also failed to bring closer all Arabs and their various governments. In fact,
the Arab summits have unconscientiously caused more harm to their issues
of discord Unfortunately, the Arab summits have an unchanged agenda
wherein the status of the common Arab man is totally neglected.
Like the previous summits, the United States tried its best to
persuade Arab leaders from taking decisions against American interests.
Prior to the summit, the US had asked friendly Arab leaders to stay away
from it as Washington felt that their presence could be construed as a show
of support for the Sudanese government, which is under international
pressure to allow a UN-peacekeeping force in the war-torn western region of
Darfur. Earlier, the US even tried to influence Arab leaders against holding
the summit in Khartoum and wanted it to be moved to some other Arab
capital.
As expected, last weeks summit did not rise to the expectations and
demands of the Arab people. He then mentioned some of the issues on
which the summit failed like; Iraqi crisis and its threats to regional
stability; repercussions of cold war between Iran and US; pressure on Arab
countries to conduct democratic reforms; possible internationalization of
Darfur conflict; and delay in finding a solution to the Palestinian cause.
The same was the case with D-8 meeting in Bali as observed by
Hassan Hanizadeh. He wrote, the D-8 has unfortunately failed to attain its
rightful status in the international arena, although it has been active for eight
years The main reason for this is the diverse political positions adopted by
D-8 member countries, which, despite their many cultural and religious
288

affinities, have failed to unite their economic potential in a way that

would benefit all Muslim nations.
He focused on nuclear technology for obvious reason. As an
influential D-8 member with a budding nuclear industry, Iran can help meet
the needs of members in this field. As the importance of nuclear energy as an
alternate source of energy looms larger, Iran can form a nuclear consortium
with other D-8 members Nigeria, which possesses reserves of uranium,
can play an active role in this arrangement.
Strategy should be worked out in such a way that it focuses on
nuclear technology and cooperation for the development of this important
industry because countries which lack this technology will fall hopelessly
behind in the modern world.
Nuclear technology is not the need of the hour for Muslim masses.
It is the education. Dr Farrukh Saleem intended to convey this message
when he wrote that there are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven
million in the Americas, five million in Asia, two million in Europe and
100,000 in Africa. For every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims.
Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times powerful than all the Muslims put
together. Ever wondered why?
He then listed prominent Jews of recent past and present and went on
to add; Washington is the capital that matters and in Washington the lobby
that matters is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or PIPAC.
Washington knows that if PM Ehud Olmert were to discover that the earth is
flat, PIPAC will make the 109th Congress pass a resolution congratulating
Olmert on his discovery. He concluded; so, why are Jews so powerful?
Answer: Education.
Prof Dr Anwarul Haque from Islamabad added, the reason why
Zionists are so powerful is because Muslims are weak. And the real reason
why Muslims are weak is because they have abandoned the Holy Quraan
Zionists know the source of strength in Muslims and therefore they and their
agents are after the Quraan and Quranic teachings. I agree with Dr Farrukh
Saleem that the Muslims must be educated. However, they must be educated
in the Quraan as well as in other spheres of sciences. Only then would the
world become a safe and peaceful place. It has to be an all-encompassing
education.

CONCLUSION
289

The regime in East Timor will be cleansed of Islamic pollution caused

by its prime minister. Pressure on Sudan will continue to allow deployment
of international peacekeepers. Somalia will emerge as rouge state after
the defeat of pro-US warlords at the hands of Islamic groups.
This phenomenon of emerging rouge states will continue until all
Muslim states are rendered incapable of posing slightest of threat to interests
of the civilized world. Turkey, an aspirant of EU membership, will also not
be spared; even if it is embraced by the EU at some distant future. Turks will
always be treated inferior to rest of the members of the Christian Club.
Muslims, no matter how enlightened and moderate they become, will
be treated discriminately. Even if some of them become members of the
civilized worlds nude clubs to prove their commitment to Enlightenment,
they will be treated as Muslims. Their membership will only make their
recognition easier and spontaneous.
America and its allies have been sobered by the resistance put up by
the terrorists in Iraq. They will bring in some cosmetic changes in their
approach, but have shown no signs to give up their sinister agenda. Hence,
the propaganda to ridicule Islam and its followers will continue along with
pressure on Islamic countries to censor religious teachings in manner similar
to the one that was adopted by the Soviet Union in Central Asia.
The rulers in Muslim World have been frightened to the extent that
they cannot see and hear and with that they have lost the ability to think
independently and rationally. Alas! Had they retained their senses; they
would have shown some kind of solidarity and Bush would have listened to
them more carefully.
5th June 2006

ILLEGAL ALL THE WAY

The revelation of massacre in Haditha was yet another reflection of
the American psyche. There are hundreds of other incidents of brutality of
occupation forces which need to be unearthed. But most unfortunately, it is
the resistance to such brute and inhuman occupation which is termed as
terrorism by all and sundry.
The Crusaders have been consolidating in Iraq through the process of
democratization. They have no intention of ending the occupation, except
reducing its cost. They intend staying on as there are still lot of Iraqi wealth
yet to be looted. Thus, the occupation will remain illegal all the way.
290

The sun has been shining bright for Israel since 9/11. Sharon had
made full use of the opportunity and now his successor, Olmert, was
pursuing the plan to impose peace unilaterally. Encouragement from Bush
Administration and rift between Fattah and Hamas was making it easier for
Olmert.

ROUGH SEAS
The coalition forces controlled outflow of news which reflected badly
on the nature of occupation, but those which helped demonizing the
insurgents were reported exaggeratingly. This line was inadvertently
followed by Pakistani media which banked upon purchasing news items
from foreign agencies.
To quote, after news blackout for couple of days, on 27th May the
News published a report by AFP in a blocked column. It was about killing of
a football coach and two players who were allegedly killed for wearing
shorts; whereas the killing of 36 people on that day was not reported. The
insurgency, however, continued to be reported scantly. Four Marines were
killed when a tank fell off a bridge on 12th May.
On 13th May, one US soldier was killed in the capital. Next day, two
US soldiers were killed when their helicopter was shot down during battles
in Latifiya and Yusufiya. Two US Marines died in unspecified combat action
in Anbar province. Two more US soldiers were killed in roadside bombing
in Baghdad. At least 26 people were killed and more than 70 wounded in a
string of attacks in the capital. Elsewhere in Iraq, 15 people were killed,
including two British soldiers who were killed in a roadside bomb attack in
southern Iraq.
US forces killed 41 rebels in raids and air strikes near Baghdad on
15 May. Rebels claimed shooting down four helicopters. Military statement
said several women and children were inadvertently wounded in the
battle. More than 30 rockets were fired at British army camp in Abu Naji,
wounding four soldiers. Eight policemen were killed and ten wounded in
clashes near Basra. More than seven people were shot dead in Balad Ruz.
Four bomb blasts in Baghdad and other cities killed seven Iraqis and
wounded several others. Next day at least 14 people were killed and 33
others wounded in car bomb attack in Baghdad.
th

On 17th May, thirteen people, including one US soldier, were killed

across the country. Next day, four US soldiers were killed in roadside
291

bombing near Baghdad, and Iraqi interpreter was also killed. Police chief in
Basra escaped attempt on his life. Two days later 26 people were killed in
violence across the country, including 19 who lost their lives in bomb blast
in Sadr City; 58 people were also wounded. Fifteen dead bodies were found
in Musayeb.
A suicide bomber killed 13 people and wounded 18 others in Baghdad
on 21 May. Three people were killed and 15 wounded in a car bomb attack
in Shula district. Three people were killed and 24 wounded in roadside
bombing along bank of Tigris. Next day, two Pakistanis working in US base
were killed in mortar fire attack.
st

On 26th May, 9 persons were killed and 30 wounded in bomb blast in

Baghdad. Two US soldiers killed in roadside bombing. Next day 36 people
were killed across the country and a Pakistani was abducted near Fallujah.
On 29th May, at least 39 people were killed in violence across Iraq, including
a spate of bombings against buses carrying people to work. A US Humvee
was destroyed in car bomb explosion in Baghdad. One US soldiers was
killed by small arms fire in Mosul. Dead bodies of Marines killed in
helicopter crash were recovered.
At least 25 people were killed and 65 wounded in car bombing in
Husseiniyah on 30th May. In Hilla, 12 people were killed and 32 wounded in
a similar attack. A bomb blast in Baghdad killed 9 and wounded 10 people.
A roadside bomb killed a US soldier. Two government employees were
killed and 3 people wounded in mortar fire on interior ministry. One police
officer was killed and four wounded in another roadside bombing. One
person was shot dead in a separate incident. Two persons were killed in
Samarra. Three persons were killed and ten wounded in Ramadi. A suicide
bomber was killed in Mosul. Iraqi officials claimed capturing a key terror
suspect in a raid. Nine dead bodies were recovered from various locations.
On 31st May, four people were killed and three wounded when
insurgents assaulted a police station in Baghdad and one person was shot
dead separately. About 40 dead bodies were found in and around the capital.
US Marines killed two women, including a pregnant woman who was being
escorted to hospital for delivery. Maliki vowed to use iron fist against
gangs trying to destabilize Basra.
A brigade commander was killed along with his guard on 1 st June near
Kirkuk. Next day, four people were killed and 50 wounded in two bomb
blasts in Baghdad. Health Ministry announced that 90 percent of the Iraqis
killed in May were civilians.
292

On 3rd June, 28 people were killed and scores wounded in bomb blast
in Basra. Later nine worshippers were killed at a mosque. State of
emergency was imposed in Basra. Police found eight severed heads near
Baghdad; four dead bodies were also found. Gunmen killed one Russian
diplomat and kidnapped four others. Two persons were killed in drive-by
shooting in Dora. Seven policemen were killed and five civilian wounded in
attack on a checkpoint north of the capital. A district head was shot dead
along with his aide and driver.
Gunmen killed 21 passengers of a bus northeast of Baghdad on 4th
June; only four Sunnis were spared. In all more than 42 people were killed in
last 24 hours. Fate of four kidnapped Russians was not known. Next day,
gunmen shot dead 11 students in Dura. Militants in police uniform abducted
50 employees of transport companies in Baghdad.
On 6th June, seven people were killed in a bomb blast in Baghdad.
Two engineers of an oil company were abducted near Tikrit. Next day, at
least eight people, including six policemen, were killed in various incidents
in Baghdad and five dead bodies were found. About 600 prisoners were
freed.

STAYING THE COURSE

Selective flow of news from Iraq combined with disinformation was
an attempt to cover the brute-ness of occupation. Trial of Saddam
Hussein is also a part of the scheme to divert attention away from the war
crimes committed by the US forces and their allies and collaborators. But,
nothing seemed to be working perfectly.
On 15th May, Kurd judge in Saddam trial read out charges
implicating him and other defendants in massacre of 148 Shias during
1980s. Saddam refused to even enter a plea. A week later, the trial
degenerated into a chaos when a defence lawyer, Bushra Khalil entered the
court. She was expelled by the previous judge and the presiding judge
ordered throwing her out of the court. She threw her robe on the judge while
she was forced to the court.
Cover up of prisoner abuse continued. On 26th May, one of the
witnesses told military court probing prisoner abuse that General Miller
encouraged the use of dogs as much as possible. They are being used at
Guantanamo Bay. It was effective as the Arab prisoners had a fear of dogs.

293

On 1st June, investigations revealed that officers had given false

testimony to their superiors in Haditha incident in which 24 innocent
civilians were killed. The US military responded by announcing that its
soldiers would receive new training to reinforce legal, moral and ethical
standards in battlefield.
Two days later, Pentagon cleared US troops of killings in Ishaqi.
Maliki had earlier accused US troops of habitually attacking unarmed
civilians. Iraq, however, vowed to press on with its probe into the deaths of
civilians and rejected the exoneration of US troops. An aide to Maliki said,
we have from more than one source that the Ishaqi killings were carried out
under questionable circumstances. More than one child was killed. This
report was not fair for Iraqi people and the children who were killed.
Edward N Luttwak commented on the intent of engineering a civil
war in Iraq. Civil wars can be especially atrocious as neighbours kill each
other at close range, but they also have a purpose. They can bring lasting
peace by destroying the will to fight and by removing the motives and
opportunities for further violence. He quoted civil wars of England,
America and Switzerland in support of this argument. This was precisely the
intention of the occupation forces; to drain the will to fight through
widespread bloodshed.
He also suggested division of Iraq as a solution to the problem.
Physical separation is therefore the only way to limit the carnage. The
process has begun, to some extent, because the violence is driving out the
members of one sect or the other from the many mixed villages, towns and
city districts. This is a painful and very costly way of interrupting the cycle
of attacks and reprisals, but that is how civil war achieves its purpose of
eventually bringing peace.
The analyst concluded that even after the return of peace presence of
occupation forces would be required. Some US and allied forces still will be
needed in remote desert bases to safeguard Iraq from foreign invasions, with
some left to hold Green Zone. He did not mention that who posed the threat
of foreign invasions.

Democratization of Iraq is the only justification left for staying

in Iraq. Shia-Sunni divide and rifts between Shiite parties over distribution
of ministries remained major hurdle in finalization of the government. In
addition, continued US meddling in the formation of the cabinet also caused
problems. On 14th May, Sadr denounced US interference and set a deadline

294

of two days before the 130 alliance deputies unilaterally form their own
cabinet. Maliki failed to announce his cabinet as per schedule because he
faced a flurry of last-minute negotiations.
At last, the Parliament approved the cabinet of 37 members on 20 th
May. Names of interior and defence ministers were not finalized, but in the
meantime, Maliki will run interior ministry and Sunni deputy prime minister
will be the in charge on defence ministry. A handful of Sunni deputies
walked out of parliament upon hearing that permanent security ministers
would not be selected in the session.
Next day, Bush said the new government marked new day for the
millions of Iraqis who want to live in freedom. Maliki vowed to use
maximum force against terrorism. A week later Talabani planned to meet
all the major political parties to break the deadlock over who should head the
nations key security ministries. Till 5th of June the political leaders failed to
agree on nominees for interior and defence ministries.
After the formation of the cabinet, the Guardian wrote, this is not the
time to dwell on bitter arguments about the war, nor to demand the
immediate withdrawal of US and British forces, though that day may be
closer with the new prime minister speaking sensibly of an objective
timetable for departure. Something better must emerge from the ruins and
gore, for the sake of Iraq and for a world destabilized by what has
happened.
The New York Times commented, theres just one major problem
with the national unity cabinet presented over the weekend by Iraqs new
prime minister. On the most important national issue reforming Iraqs
corrupt, brutal and highly partisan security forces no unity has yet been
achieved.
Without such a deal, there will be very little to show for the hopes of
the million Iraqis who risked their lives to vote for a peaceful and
democratic future. Or for the efforts of the tens of thousands of American
troops who risked theirs to make that vote possible.
The core of the problem lies with the Interior Ministry and the police,
as a Times investigative series this week by Michael Moss, David Rohde
and Kirk Simple have made painfully clear. Every American effort to train
a professional police force were understaffed and under financed by the
Pentagon. Even as Iraq dissolved into chaos and insurgency, Washington
continued to short-change these efforts.

295

It will now take a strong, reform-minded new interior minister, not a

politically brokered caretaker, to root out these abuses. A thorough-going
reform of the security services is needed to assure all Iraqis Sunni,
Shiite, Kurd or whatever that they will be protected as they go about their
everyday lives.
The Washington Post observed, the political process, though a
success in its own terms, has manifestly failed to stabilize Iraq or even to
produce any meaningful movement in that direction. The Sunni insurgency
is as active and as strong as it was two years ago; though US casualties have
dropped in the first five months of this year, compared with the same period
last year, attacks have not. The overall level of killing is far higher than it
was in late 2003 because of the gathering momentum of sectarian bloodshed
among Sunnis and Shiites. Reconstruction, too, has gone backward since
sovereignty was handed to an interim government in June 2004: Oil
production and electricity generation are down.
Does that mean that the strategy is wrong or that the mission should
be abandoned? Its too early to draw that conclusion. The new government
and its army have been painfully assembled over the course of many
months: they should be given a chance to tackle the insurgency and stabilize
the country with US support. Encouragingly, new Prime Minister Nouri alMaliki has announced plans to rein in the government security forces and
Shiite militias that are responsible for much of the sectarian killing, while
President Jalal Talabani has been negotiating with Sunni insurgents.
Fareed Zakaria said, co-opting the majority of the Sunnis is the
simplest way Maliki can cripple the insurgency. So far he has said some
encouraging things about national unity. On the other hand, he has given
Sunnis only 11 percent of cabinet posts, though they are 20 percent of
the country Malikis second challenge is with his own. The Shiite militias
now run rampant throughout non-Kurdish Iraq. Khalilzad believes that they
will have to be largely disbanded perhaps 5 percent of them can be
integrated.
Simon Tisdall wrote, it is doubtful that a collective sense of Iraqi
nationalism can survive in a context of increasing sectarian violence and
the continuing security vacuum. Democracy has exacerbated Iraqs ethnic
and sectarian tensions, with voters largely dividing along Sunni, Shia and
Kurdish lines The parliamentary committee charged with amending Iraqs
unfinished constitution was unlikely to deliver political compromise but was
certain to become the focus of new acrimony, especially among Sunnis.

296

OPPOSING WINDS
Despite diversion of focus on Irans nuclear programme, analysts kept
criticizing Iraq War. Albright said that Iraq was a war of choice, not of
necessity. Invasion of Iraq was badly planned. Claude Salhani wrote about
the financial aspect of the war. According to the National Priorities
Projectthe cost of war in Iraq now standing at $ 284,760,197,435
could instead have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years. The
figures speak for Americas interest in well-being of the humanity.
Essa bin Mohammad al-Zedjali dwelled on looting of Iraqs
wealth. Many might wonder as to what is happening to the oil wealth now.
Obviously, it is the strangers who grab the lions share as the expenses of
keeping the coalition forces in Iraq are rocketing day by day. Coalition
forces have claimed that they are there to protect the Iraqi people, but the
reality is that they are protecting themselves and helping loot the countrys
wealth and treasures.
International news agencies have unearthed organized racketing in
oil exports. Fudging in the oil export bills is commonplace as, in most cases,
oil tanks are without meters. All these misdeeds are carried out with careful
planning by the strangers for whom Iraq have become a milch cow.
As a matter of fact, the looting of Iraq marks back to the time the
country was under siege when the oil-for-food scheme was in force. Those
who were in charge of the program benefited from it even as Iraqis starved.
Several businessmen have confessed to giving bribes to those in charge of
the oil-for-food program for getting contracts.
The looting of the Iraqi wealth and treasures continues unabated and
foreign firms vie with each other to win contracts that are often clinched
under the table. The contracts are awarded in such a way that a chunk of
them would go to American companies Now, Iraq represents a sphere of
conflict of interests and looting as well as death and destruction. While the
Iraqis fall dead in explosions on daily basis, the coalition forces take shelter
in the so-called Green Zone.
The looting is not limited to oil but includes manuscripts, cultural
masterpieces at various museums including the National Museum, which are
transferred to other countries. The pillage of Iraq will continue in one form
or the other as long as chaos reigns in that country.

297

The real intention of the coalition forces is clear from their plan to
stay on in Iraq as long as possible. And without doubt, their presence will
lead to further looting of Iraqs treasures and the deterioration of the
conditions of the Iraqi people and will put them at risk of death every
second.
Joshua Holland wrote, theres story, perhaps apocryphal, that
Pentagon planners wanted to name the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi
Liberation. Only when someone realized that the acronym O.I.L. might
raise some uncomfortable questions, was Operation Iraqi Freedom born.
Supporters of the Iraq war airily dismiss chants of no blood for oil
as a manifestation of the anti-war crowds naivet. They point out that Iraqs
government still controls its oil and argue that we could have simply bought
it on the open market Both of those claims are true on their face, but
bringing Iraqs vast oil wealth under the control of foreign multinationals
with US firms the best positioned to develop it was always central to
US plans for Iraq.
I recently conducted an interview with Juhasz, who explained the
details: The United States crafted a new oil law for Iraq that provided
for production sharing agreements (PSAs), which are contractual terms
between a government and a foreign corporation to explore for, produce and
market oil. Production sharing agreements are not used by any country in the
Middle East or, in fact, by any country thats truly wealthy in oil. Theyre
used to entice investors into an area where the oil is expensive to produce or
there isnt a lot of oil.
But Iraqs oil reserves are very easy and cheap to get to. You
essentially just stick a pipe in the ground and you get oil. Theres absolutely
no reason for Iraq to enter into PSAs, but theres every reason for Western
oil companies to want them they provide the best terms short of full
privatization of the oil Its estimated that Iraq has 80 oil fields.
Seventeen of them have been discovered. Under the new oil law written
into the constitution those 17 will be under the control of the Iraqi oil
company.
All undiscovered oil fields are now open to the PSAs. That means,
depending on how much oil there is in Iraq, foreign companies will have
control over at least 64 percent of Iraqs oil and as much as 84 percent. PSAs
are the worst possible deals for the countries; in Latin America some of the
worst PSAs gave domestic governments royalties of just one percent of their
natural gas revenues.
298

Iraqs permanent oil law is being written with the help of

Bearingpoint Inc under a contract from USAID. The Virginia-based
company (which was KPMG until it changed its name after being embroiled
in the Arthur Anderson accounting scandal) prepared a report for the Bush
Administration in 2003 that concluded foreign participation (is) the most
efficient way of developing the sector, according to Dow Jones. A USAID
spokesman said the company will be providing legal and regulatory advice
in drafting the framework of petroleum and other energy-related legislation,
including foreign investment.
The principles embedded in the transitional oil law cant be
dismissed down the road by Iraqs legislature with a simple vote; they
were built into the countrys Constitution, a document that Iraqis approved,
without having a firm grip on its details.
Chapter 4, Article 109, specifies that all new oil fields will be
developed relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and
encouraging investment. While the constitutions of other energy-rich
countries lay out principles regarding their resources, Iraq is unique in
specifying that future governments must develop the countrys most
valuable commodity in tandem with foreign multinationals.
Under Iraqs new laws, those kinds of policies common among oilproducing countries are prohibited. Saying that Iraqs vast oil reserves
projected by some analysts to be the largest in the world, greater than Saudi
Arabias was the sole motivation for the US invasion of Iraq simplifies
a complex issue No wonder the West fears terrorists using WMDs
against them.
Time magazines investigative report on Haditha killings led to
spate of criticism of brutalities of the occupation forces. Los Angeles Times
wrote, if Marines avenged the killing of a comrade by terrorizing and
killing innocent Iraqis, they disgraced their uniform and must be punished.
The same is true of anyone higher in the chain of command who helped
conceal what happened on Nov 19, 2005 in Haditha in western Iraq.
Villagers have told journalists that Marines incensed by the killing of
a lance corporal went house to house and shot men, women and children
at close range Initially, a Marine spokesman described the dead Iraqis as
victims of a roadside bomb or an exchange of gunfire. That story began to
unstick in January, however, when Time magazine supplied military officials
in Baghdad with contrary accounts of the incident from Iraqis.

299

If the allegations of a massacre are corroborated and a full

disclosure is overdue the debate about the wisdom of the US mission in
Iraq inevitably will become even more inflamed. But in Iraq, as in Vietnam,
larger explanations for atrocities cannot be regarded as excuses.
I understand the fog of war and the confusion of battle, Murtha, a
decorated combat veteran, said the other day. But no amount of fog, and no
level of confusion, can obscure the fact that this is a nation of laws, and
when the US condones the deliberate murder of civilians it becomes, as
Murtha said, no better than its enemy.
Daily Telegraph wrote, Haditha and Basra sadly bring together two
milestones around the occupations neck. The first is inexcusably brutal
behaviour by members of a professional army, notoriously demonstrated
in 2003 by the humiliation of prisoners in Baghdads Abu Ghraib prison. The
second is the serious miscalculation by the occupiers of the reception they
would receive in Iraq. Too few coalition troops and the disbanding of the
Iraqi army meant fatal reliance on militias to keep the peace.
The Nation said, the killings may have been in retaliation for the
death of a Marine lance corporal, but this was not the work of soldiers gone
berserk. The targets (children from 3 to 14, an old man in wheelchair, taxi
passengers), the hour-long duration of killings, the number of Marines
involved, the careful mop up all amount to willful, targeted brutality
designed to send a message to Iraqis.
The New York Times wrote, now that we have reached the one place
we most wanted to avoid, it will not do to focus blame narrowly on the
Marine unit suspected of carrying out these killings and ignore the
administration officials, from President Bush on down, who made the
chances of this sort of disaster so much greater by deliberately blurring the
rules governing the conduct of American soldiers in the field. The inquiry
also needs to critically examine the behaviour of top commanders
responsible for ensuring lawful and professional conduct and of midlevel
officers who apparently covered up the Haditha incident for months until
journalists inquiries forced a more honest review.
So far, nothing on President Bushs repeated statements on the issue
offers any real assurance that the White House and the Pentagon will not
once again try to protect the most senior military and political ranks
from proper accountability. This is the pattern that this administration has
repeatedly followed in the past

300

Richard Norton-Taylor was of the view that US commanders have

failed to train and educate their soldiers in counter-insurgency and the need
to cultivate the hearts and minds of the local population. US military
strategy in Iraq was to kill or capture all terrorists and insurgents: they saw
military destruction of the enemy as a strategic goal in its own right.
Robert Fisk implored, could Haditha be just the tip of the mass
grave? The corpses we have glimpsed, the grainy footage of the cadavers
and the dead children; could these be just a few of many? Does the
handiwork of the United States army of the slums go further?
I remember clearly the first suspicions I had that murder most foul
might be taking place in our name in Iraq. I was in the Baghdad mortuary,
counting corpses, when one of the citys senior medical officials, an old
friend, told me of his fears. Everyone brings bodies here, he said. But
when the Americans bring bodies in, we are instructed that under no
circumstances are we ever to do post-mortems After Haditha, we are
going to reshape our suspicions.
I suspect part of the problem is that we never really cared about
Iraqis, which is why we refused to count their dead. Once the Iraqis turned
upon the army of occupation with their roadside bombs and suicide cars,
they became Arab gooks, the evil sub-humans whom the Americans once
identified in Vietnam.
Killing a roomful of civilians is only a step further from all those
promiscuous air strikes that we are all told kill terrorists but which all too
often turn out to be a wedding party or as in Afghanistan a mixture of
terrorists and children or, as we are soon to hear, no doubt, terrorist
children.
For who can be held to account when we regard ourselves as the
brightest, the most honourable of creatures, doing endless battle with
the killers of Sept 11 or July 7 because we love our country and our people
but not other people so much. And, so we dress ourselves up as
Galahads, yes as Crusaders, and we tell those whose countries we invade
that we are going to bring them democracy. I cant help wondering today
how many of the innocents slaughtered in Haditha took the opportunity to
vote in the Iraqi elections before their liberators murdered them.
Kamran Shafi said, whilst the magazine broke the story in March this
year, four months after the atrocity, the inquiry is nearing completion now,
seven months after the shameful incident. All this while, it must be pointed

301

out, the Pentagon downward lied through their teeth, stonewalling, until
the Time story compelled them to investigate the matter properly.
On plans to impart training on warrior values, he wrote, are Dubya
and Rummy and Dick Cheney and neocon beauties who led by them by the
nose-ring also going to be trained in morality and ethics and core warrior
values? They are the leaders of this assault, after all; they are the ones who
set the pace, and they are the ones who have been sending entirely the
wrong message to their forces.
These so-called leaders of the great country of America started it all
by demonizing Iraqis and Afghans and Muslims, by saying in so many
words that they were no better than vermin who needed to be stamped out. If
any one needs training in morals and ethics these three and their
handlers need it.
Second, are morality and ethics and core warrior values not part of an
American soldiers training? Arent officer cadets taught how to be officers
and gentlemen whilst still at the academy? Third, what will the US Army
teach its soldiers, especially the much-vaunted Marines in thirty days, when
they havent learnt anything at all in the many years some of them have been
in service? When even the killing of children didnt move even one of them
to make a report to their superior officers? Arent these people so beyond
learning, so beyond the pale that the only thing that will work is to de-mob
(pun intended, for the actions of the Yahoos were most surely those of
untruly, wild MOB) the lot?
He then referred to another massacre discovered recently in the town
of Ishaqi. The Americans are alleged to have rounded up 11 people: two
women, one seventy-five year old, five children, one six month old baby,
and four other people whatever that means, and shot them dead. US troops
claimed that all these were killed in a building collapse, but Iraqi police in a
report filed soon after the killings disagreed with the American version and
said that all the dead had gunshot wounds to the chest and head.
So there, Master Dubya, another mistake would you call it? A lying,
deceiving, ill trained, brutal command is what you have. A command that is
out of control: yours, Rummys and their commanders in the field. And you
call yourself Commander-in-Chief? But wait. Isnt Rummy the bestest
defence Secretary the United States was ever blessed with? Shouldnt he
then, have known all about the massacres? Shouldnt the buck stop
somewhere slightly higher up than private soldiers or non-coms?

302

The News wrote, Maliki said on Thursday that attacks on civilians by

US-led coalition troops were a daily phenomenon and that they do not
respect the Iraqi people and crush them with their vehicles. His remarks
indicated that the kind of tensions between Washington and Baghdad that
led to Mr Jaafaris exit are not going to go away any time soon.
About refresher training, the editor said, refresher courses on legal,
moral and ethical standards are not the issue. Of course, the best thing
would be for the Americans to withdraw from that country, but until that
happens a wholesale change in US policy is needed, one that treat Iraqis,
even prisoners, as people with basic rights.

Bush and Blair remained favourite targets for the critics of war.
Gary Younge wrote, both leaders got precisely what they wanted.
Unchecked by political opposition at home, unfettered by international law
abroad, un-persuaded by argument at home and abroad, like Sinatra they did
it their way. And so, since they have no one else to blame and find
themselves out of credit at the goodwill bank of public opinion, they
reach for the arbiter of last resort: history.
The Asian Age observed, British Prime Minister Tony Blair last week
flew to Washington to hold the hand of US President George W Bush at a
joint news conference. With their backs to the wall, Mr Blair and Mr Bush
tried to mount a mutual show of solidarity with the earnest hope of regaining
some lost ground in their respective countries over their misadventure in
Iraq.
Mr Blair looked tired and sounded trite, while Mr Bush appeared
nervous and sounded nave. In an exercise in self-congratulation, the two
leaders celebrated the formation of an Iraqi government which Mr Bush
hailed as a new beginning for Iraq Unable to wriggle out of the mess of
their own making, Mr Bush and Mr Blair who had contemptuously rejected
the worlds well-meaning advice prior to the invasion, now wanted the
international community to come to their rescue. The invasion and
occupation of Iraq have become what the New York Times described as a
political albatross for both.
Scott Ritter said, despite setbacks and mis-steps, I strongly believe
we did and are doing the right thing, Bush remarked, although he was quick
to add, not everything has turned out the way we hoped. That, of course,
could qualify for the understatement of the year.

303

Blair spoke of faulty judgments, perhaps the greatest of which was

to underestimate the scope and intensity of the insurgency, which he in
typical fashion characterized as fighting against the democratic process, as
opposed to struggling against an illegal, illegitimate and unjust occupation.
Scott remarked, decision, based upon lies and deceit, and done in
pursuit of pure power (either in the form of global hegemony, per Bush, or
a pathetic effort to ride Bushs coattails in the name of maintaining a special
relationship, for Blair), underscores the reality that when it comes to Iraq,
both are resting on a policy that is as corrupt as one can possibly imagine.
Void of any genuine reflection as to what actually went wrong, and
lacking in any reality-based process which seeks to formulate a sound way
out of Iraq, these two politicians are simply continuing the self-delusional
process of blundering down a path in Iraq that can only lead to more death
and destruction.
Perhaps the advisors of Bush and Blair thought they were going to
put a human face on two leaders who had been so vilified over the Iraq
debacle. If so they failed. The joint press conference was little more than a
pathetic show where two failed politicians voiced their continued
support of failed policies, which had gotten their respective nations
embroiled in a failed war.
Thomas X Hammes said that the laundry list of inaction on the part
of the Bush Administration leaves a prudent Iraqi with no practical choice
but to prepare for a United States withdrawal long before the Iraqi central
government and security forces are capable of running the nation. For most
Iraqis Arab or Kurd Sunni or Shiite this will mean looking to religious
and ethnic militias, criminal gangs and Islamist insurgents for protection.
This, in turn, greatly increases the chance of civil war.
Air Cdr Azhar A Khan did not agree with those who blamed US
intelligence for providing wrong information which led to invasion of Iraq.
He said that intelligence was deliberately fabricated. I still give credit to
these two gentlemen (Bush and Blair) to how they convinced their
countrymen, through their flimsy reasons, to invade Iraq. And, hats off to the
people of these two countries who listened to these flimsy reasons and reelected their leaders to new terms. Azhar missed a point. It was the western
media which made it possible by fanning anti-Muslim sentiment which
blurred the vision of Crusades-crazy civilized people.

304

MAKING HAY
While cultivating secular democracy in Iraq, the Crusaders supported
Israel to destroy Palestinian democratic fields which produced an Islamic
variety of the crop. But, Hamas government faced major threat from enemy
within the ranks of Palestinians.
It was feared that Fatah and Hamas were moving fast toward armed
confrontation as Hamas sent its gunmen to restore law and order in Gaza
Strip on 18th May. Security forces loyal to Abbas opposed it. The same day,
Hamas deputy premier was forced to cut short his visit to Tulkarem as Fatah
radicals stopped his vehicle and fired into air.
On 20th May, Intelligence Chief of Palestinian Authority was seriously
wounded and his body guard was killed in a blast in Gaza. The wounded
chief was evacuated to a hospital in Israel on request of Abbas.
Five days later, Abbas laid down a challenge to Hamas calling on the
group and other factions to back a Palestinian proposal that seeks a
negotiated settlement with Israel. He also gave ten days to Fatah and Hamas
to resolve their differences. Next day, Hamas pulled out controversial militia
from the streets of Gaza to avoid further infighting with the rival Fatah.
On 27th May, Hamas rejected a deadline set by Abbas to accept a plan
that indirectly calls for recognition of Israel, the issue which he had
threatened to put to referendum. Next day, Abbas planned to host first
meeting of a new committee, which included Hamas representatives, in a bid
to evolve common approach to tackle a series of crises
Palestinian Foreign Minister walked out in protest when Fatah leader
arrived to attend NAM meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 29 th May. Five days
later, Fatah deployed militia in Jenin as show of force against Hamas. On 5 th
June, five people were killed in factional violence in Gaza.
On 6th June, Abbas gave final ultimatum to Hamas to accept a
manifesto implicitly recognizing Israel by the end of the week or face a
referendum on the issue. PLO backed Abbas. Israel kept low profile but was
pleased with initiative of Abbas.
Hamas government kept facing financial hardship. Malaysia offered
aid to Palestinian Authority. Palestinian banks agreed to pay salaries to
government employees. Pakistan promised $ 3 million aid to Palestine
during its foreign ministers visit to Islamabad.

305

The Crusaders bias against Hamas touched the extreme limits when
Merkel was angered by the visit of a Palestinian minister to Germany on the
visa issued by another European country. Only a week later, Olmert met
Bush in Washington and won support from the host for fixing Israels
borders unilaterally. Olmert said, we cannot be held hostage by a terrorist
entity which refuses to change or promote dialogue.
Meanwhile, state terrorism against Palestinians continued.
Amnesty International reported that Israeli security forces and settlers were
being allowed to perpetrate abuses against Palestinians with no real fear of
being brought to justice. Following incidents were reported:
Two leaders of Islamic Jihad were among six Palestinians killed by
Israeli troops in the northern West Bank on 14th May.
On 26th May, a leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad was killed in
roadside bombing in Lebanon.
Six Palestinian fighters and an Israeli soldier were wounded in tit-fortat attacks along Lebanese border on 28 th May. Israeli warplanes
bombed bases of a pro-Syrian Palestinian group including positions
near Beirut. Islamic Jihad denied firing rockets on Israel.
On 30th May, Israeli troops carried out first ground operation in Gaza
Strip since pulling out of the territory and killed three militants and a
policeman. Three militants were killed in West Bank.
Israel carried out air strikes on 31st May and Palestinian groups fired
three missiles which landed near defence ministers home.
Jennie Mathew criticized Israeli hostility towards Palestinians. There
is no justice. Its a jungle law here. Settlers can kill, shoot, attack, do
anything, complains Palestinian coffee shop owner Hani Abu Haikal to a
group of visiting Israelis in war-torn Hebron.
He tells them he was arrested last year after hard-line Jewish settlers,
who live in the occupied West Bank city, attacked and broke the windows of
his hilltop villa while he was entertaining Christian and Israeli friends
And when his elderly father collapsed in shock, it took three days to
negotiate an ambulance to take him to hospital. When he died, settlers
danced around the ambulance going to the cemetery, handed out sweets and
called death to Arabs.
The once bustling Palestinian market, now occupied by Jewish
squatters, is a deserted mesh of barbed wire, camouflage netting, a rooftop
306

Israeli sniper and walls defaced by Hebrew graffiti proclaiming Death to the
Arabs Nearby Jewish children set fire to abandoned Palestinian debris, the
tassels of their prayer shawls dangling under their shirts. Settlers routinely
attack Palestinian children, prompting international peace observers such
as 78-year-old John Lynes from Britain, to walk them to school each day.
Condemnation of blocking of aid to Palestinians continued. Cesar
Chelala observed that while Hamas is snubbed; there is something perverse
about making children pawns in a complex political game. It is urgent,
therefore, that funds being retained by Israel as well as international aid from
the US, the European Union and Canada be redirected to organizations such
as the World Health Organization and UNICEF.
The Boston Globe conditionally welcomed Quartet decision to
provide humanitarian aid direct to Palestinians. It stressed that
international community should apply political pressure on Hamas by
making it clear that negotiations leading to two-state resolution of the
conflict with Israel will be possible if Hamas changes its one-state position.
Ronnie Kasrils and Victoria wrote that the West is frustrating
democratic elections in Palestine by withholding aid, and using collective
punishment, an economic siege and starvation as political weapons in
their efforts to get the Hamas government to accept their terms of business
with Israel.
Today western moral authority in the Middle East is gone, as
much because of years of double standards in Palestine as because of the
current disastrous war in Iraq. There is no excuse for not knowing the truth
about what is now happening to the Palestinians. And the most recent
diplomatic moves by the Quartet the US, the EU, the UN and Russia to
alleviate suffering, while keeping up the ban on dealing with the
Palestinians elected leaders, are totally inadequate.
The Palestinians are having sanctions imposed on them for their
political choice. But it is Israel, creating new facts on the ground to
prevent the emergence of a viable Palestinian state that should be facing
sanctions. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan should use his last months in
office to call for sanctions to bring about the implementation of the ICJ
ruling on the Israeli wall, the closure of West Bank settlements and the
release of Palestinian political prisoners
Jonathan Freedland expressed similar views. The moral objections to
this latest US move, and the whole international policy of denying aid to the

307

Palestinians, are obvious: it punishes the Palestinians for their democratic

choice of Hamas in free and fair elections; and its hard to explain a world
where sanctions are imposed not on the occupier but the occupied: this is the
politics of Lewis Carroll.
Even if Israel is not persuaded of the moral case for abandoning its
current stance, it should do so for its own self-interest. First, if it allows a
humanitarian crisis to engulf the Palestinian territories, the rest of the
world will be forced to act and will end up dealing with Hamas after all
Second, the terror behind a sanctions policy is its assumption that the
victims of sanctions turn on their own government. But the evidence already
points the other way, to Palestinians rallying around the new leadership.
Third, and related, is the assumption that if Hamas can be starved
into defeat, if sanctions can somehow trigger regime failure, then a more
amenable leadership will take its place. The flaw here is historical. Time
after time Israel has sought to bypass Palestinians chosen
representatives, deeming them too extreme.
Theres one last, self-interested reason why Israel should want Hamas
to get its hands on the money it needs. It will keep them busy, says Agha.
With a society to run, there will be less appetite for return to violence. The
question however: is Israel really interested to end violence?
George S Hishmeh cautioned, it will be wrong for the Bush
Administration to believe that the Palestinians are spineless. One former
Palestinian minister reminded a select audience at the Woodrow Wilson
Centre in Washington that the poorly armed Palestinian resistance has over
the long run managed to disrupt Israeli dreams of a Greater Israel and a
military solution to the decades-long conflict a reminder that may shake up
Olmerts advance men who have been knocking on various doors here.

The rift within Palestinians was damaging their cause badly.

Prisoners document became the latest bone on contention between the two
political groups. Arab News, on the basis of a documents signed by
Barghouti of Fatah and Abdel-Khaliq of Hamas, speculated shift in Hamas
stance. The document that has been hammered out by Palestinian activists
in Israeli jails, including Hamas members, would implicitly recognize
Israel. The proposals are a serious effort to extricate Palestinians from the
economic crisis by way of a major shift in Hamas ideology which, in turn,
might lead to a breakthrough in the search for peace.

308

It feared split in Hamas on the basis of statement of Khaled Meshaal

in which he stressed upon liberating Palestine. Since its victory in the
elections, Hamas has been ambiguous on whether it will or wont recognize
Israel. It is split between pragmatists who are ready to accept a two-state
solution under certain conditions, and hardliners, such as Meshaal.
Gershom Gorenberg said, the gap between Hamass positions and
public leanings is causing ferment in Palestinian politics. One sign of that
is the accord just signed between top figures in Fatah and Hamas imprisoned
in Israel. It calls for establishing a Palestinian state on all territories
occupied in 1967 thereby accepting Israels existence within its pre-1967
borders.
The Daily Star wrote, while Olmert is busy laying the groundwork to
carve off large swathes of Palestinian territory for the state of Israel, the
Palestinians are busy fighting among themselves. The escalating clashes
between rival Fatah and Hamas factions are now more damaging to the
Palestinian people than Israeli raids. As long as the Palestinians are plagued
by infighting, they will never be able to channel their collective energies into
thwarting Israels unilateral ambitions.
While Olmert is due to meet with Bush in Washington today,
Palestinian factions are scheduled to gather for their first round of national
dialogue, which was called to forge a unified Palestinian agenda. In order to
create a united front, both Hamas and Fatah will have to compromise.
The two groups will also need to rally behind a single agenda that renounces
violence and therefore denies Israel its justification for its oppressive and
unilateral measures.
Boston Globe commented on ultimatum of referendum given by
Abbas for indirect recognition of Israel. If Hamas refuses to drop its onestate doctrine a single Sharia-based state from the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean Sea then Abbas will have cornered Hamas into conceding
that, despite the parliamentary majority in won in Januarys elections, the
Islamic party hardly reflects the popular will.
If Hamas accepts negotiations for a two-state peace accord with
Israel, Abbas will have not only obliged Hamas to abandon core principles in
its charter. He will also have made possible the resumption of suspected
international aid Abbas deserves Israeli and international backing for his
peaceful, political effort to make Hamas choose between its doctrinal
fantasies and the real interests of the Palestinian people.

309

Jordan Times was of the view that referendum could be an

ingenious way out for Hamas, to circumvent having to make concessions
so the international community could then restart financial support to the
Palestinian government which, after all, is the institution meant to spend that
money, as opposed to the Palestinian presidency which is fast becoming a
shadow government, a development that can only go bad places.
Except for one thing; no one has offered Palestinians a state,
certainly not one conforming to international legality. On the contrary, Israel
has repeatedly stated its intention to set its own borders far short of such a
state, while Washington all but endorsed a modified version of that Israeli
plan in 2004. And lets not even start on the right to return.
So the glaring question is what would Palestinians be voting on?
And why is this time different from the Oslo Accords? Perhaps it is the
international community that needs to get proactive and pressure Israel into
offering such a state, before Palestinians either endorse or reject castles in
the sand.
Arab News said, Abbas has given Hamas until early next week to
accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, or there will be a
national referendum on the issue. He is gambling on one central belief:
that the majority of his people are ready to accept a two-state solution. Polls
show that Palestinians want peace talks that could lead to the creation of a
Palestinian state, if its a viable one, on all the lands Israel occupied
The daily newspaper added, unless Hamas disbands its new force,
Fatah will reportedly create other militia units across the West Bank and
Gaza Strip. This is while Fatah officials say they have information that
Hamas wants to flex its muscles beyond its Gaza power base and has begun
organizing a militia in the West Bank. The spread of gun wielding militias
across the territories with the specific intention of showing whos boss
looks, smells and feels much like a civil war in the making.
Sami Moubayed criticized Jordans role in taking sides in
Palestinians divide. What happened in Jordan on May 11 should not have
been a surprise for any body familiar with the complex politics of the
Middle East. Jordanian authorities arrested 20 members of Hamas in Jordan,
accusing them of smuggling arms and ammunition into the Hashmite
kingdom, to be used against Jordanian officials.
Adding spice to the showdown, three arrested Palestinians were
interviewed on Jordanian TV, declaring that they had been recruited by
Hamas, through Syria, to carry out terrorist operations in Jordan. Clearly the
310

charade was intended to incriminate both the authorities in Ramallah

and Damascus, and tarnish Hamass image in the international community,
and the Arab World.
He thought that the story was fabricated to overshadow other
events reflecting Hamass pragmatic stance and positive change in its
approach. Jordan media down-played the understanding reached between
Barghouti-Khaliq, which proposed confining the resistance to territories
occupied by Israel and secondly, Bashar al-Assad had agreed, through
Sudanese mediation, to receive Lebanons Prime Minister Fouad Siniors
and thirdly, Syria had recognized Iraqi Kurdistan and commenced flights
between Syria and Arbil.

US backing of Israel with complete disregard of all rules of fair

play and justice has been the cause of Palestinians plight. The latest issue on
which Israel wanted US support was its plan to fix its borders unilaterally
as envisaged by Sharon and pursued by his successor.
Before Olmerts visit to Washington, Gershom Gorenberg observed,
whats lacking in Olmerts plan is an incentive to return to the table. If
Palestinians will get the same borders no matter what, why negotiate? The
message should be that with recognition, Palestinians could achieve much
more than the borders Israel would impose unilaterally.
He suggested, Bush should give Olmert half an endorsement.
Withdrawing is an excellent idea, he should say. We hail it as a sign of
Israels desire to reach peace. But evacuated settlers must move to Israel
proper, not to other settlements.
In a subsequent article he wrote, Olmert says he will ask the US for
funds. At first glance, the request seems like the height of audacity. For
years, Israel has ignored US objections to settling on occupied land and
now it wants American money to undo the damage?
It would be absurd to move settlers from the outlying settlements to
the remaining settlements near the Green Line now only to force them to
move again. And it would be absurd for the United States to invest in such a
project The conditions should also include a full, public accounting of
Israeli government spending on settlements. Much of the Israel public
would welcome that transparency.
Los Angeles Times wrote, as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
chatted with President Bush on Thursday during his first official visit to the
United States, the Palestinian territories he left behind were degenerating
311

into anarchy that could lead to civil war. That may have been the aim when
the two leaders cut off the flow of money to the Palestinian Authority But
neither Israel nor the United States is going to like the result if the
Palestinian government collapses.
America seemed staying the course of administering collective
punishment. The House approved a measure Tuesday that would cut most
US aid to nongovernmental organizations working in the Palestinian
territories and deny visas to members of the Palestinian Authority. This
ham-handed attempt to appear tough on terror, opposed by the Bush
Administration, would cause needless suffering to the innocent and goes too
far in micromanaging US contacts with the Palestinian Authority.
The New York Times commented, Mr Olmert said Israel was willing
to negotiate with Palestinian Authority. He added, in a few years they
could be living in a Palestinian state, side by side in peace and security with
Israel. Wed like to see that, too. We only hope that Mr Olmert and Mr Bush
realize that there will not be peace in the Middle East unless the
Palestinians have a say in creating a state that can function.
The Washington Post said, Mr Olmert has now won Mr Bushs de
facto consent to pursue a unilateral realignment in which Israel would draw
a border of its own choosing in the West Bank, dismantle some of the
settlements that lie beyond it and thereby guarantee Israels security as a
Jewish state with the borders it desires, as the prime minister puts it. Mr
Bush called these ideas bold, adding that they could lead to a two-state
solution. But as Mr Olmert acknowledged, there is one crucial condition:
Israel cannot successfully impose its plans on the Palestinians unless it
has the comprehensive support of the United States
That means that in the remainder of his term, Mr Bush will have the
opportunity to encourage an Israeli redeployment that would open the way
toward the Palestinian state he called for four years ago. But he could also
cripple the prospects for that settlement if he provides a US imprimatur
for a realignment that disregards essential Palestinian interests.
Al-Ahram Weekly recalled, when the US tried to pressure former
(and democratically elected) Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to give up nuclear
weapons, he said he couldnt, for that was the choice of the people who put
him in office. The US responded by backing a military coup against Sharif.
Pervez Musharraf, who succeeded Sharif in office, entered an unconditional
alliance with the US and offered the Americans concessions that no elected
government could have made.
312

It added, the US and Israel are hoping to do the Palestinians what

theyve done to the Pakistanis. They are hoping to bring down the
democratic Hamas government and replace it with a malleable autocracy.
Thats why the Americans and Israelis are waging a campaign to starve the
Palestinians and break their will. The criminal onslaught on the Palestinians
is likely to continue until Hamas is replaced with a supine oligarchy willing
to accept Olmerts convergence plan.
Muhammad Salahuddin talked about Merkels double standards.
The chancellor has, perhaps, not heard about the more than five million
Palestinian refugees who have been leading a miserable life in packed
refugee camps in abject poverty over the past 58 years. She may also be
blissfully unaware of the cause of such huge number of people becoming
homeless. It was the Jewish settlers and Zionist organizations armed and
financed by her country who created such an unprecedented number of
refugees in Palestine. This lack of awareness and humane sympathy might
have been the reason why the reports of Israels cruelties to the hapless
Palestinian civilians leave her untouched as she fumes at the Palestinian
ministers entry to German territory
The German head of state, in this instance, has been obviously
applying a double standard in dealing with the two people, Israelis and
Palestinians. In their keenness to please the Zionists, the Western leaders
have never hesitated to throw to the winds the highest human values such as
justice, equality and human rights.
David Hirst said, in the wake of Hamas assumption of power, when
President George W Bush pithy, plain and seemingly unabashed
declared: We support democracy but that doesnt mean we have to
support governments elected as a result of democracy. And his
administration set about engineering Palestinian regime change in reverse.
Its strategy found more or less willing accomplices Europeans,
Arab governments, the Palestinians themselves. But it was always going to
be a perilous one The analyst concluded by quoting Rami Khouri about
the consequences of the irrational strategy.
Hundreds of thousands of young people will feel duped and betrayed.
The wellspring of support for Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood-style
democratic engagement will slowly dry up, in favour of more intense
armed struggle. They will stop wasting their time trying to achieve a
redress of grievances through peaceful democratic politics or diplomacy, and
instead fight the larger civilizational battle they see before them.
313

Archie Augustine dwelled on the issue. The West allowed the

legalized theft and occupation of a portion of Palestine now named
Israel, and then retained a backyard without any legal status so that it could
annex just as much land as it could, leaving a few acres to the so called
Palestinians. The only reason Israel would not annex the entire area is
because they would firstly have to introduce a true democracy and lose
power. The second reason is that slow as the process may be, it is bent on
genocide. Peace is just not on the Israeli agenda.
The Hamas position is simply what all right-minded people want.
Resistance to the occupation may well appear to be counter-productive,
encouraging further Israeli attacks. This is not necessarily true. The so-called
peace process would not move an inch in a hundred years if the armed
resistance stopped. Great grandchildren would span in the settlements
while the children of refugees resign themselves to the ruins of their camps.
The historic revulsion at the creation of Israel suggests that any
right-thinking Zionist would have been pleased with Arafats recognition of
Israel and the two-state solution: Partition. This is what is acceptable to the
Palestinians. It seems that all of us understand this except the big powers.
None of them want a two-state solution just yet or not at all. The
thinking is linked to the Serbian massacre of Muslims and the invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Iraq invasion had gone as wishfully believed by
the Coalition, then other countries would have been on the cards. Bush, the
leader of the pack, had five years to sweep these areas. Even a Democratic
would have been pleased to take over the spit and polish thereafter. The very
hypocrites, who were busy killing Muslims while their Serbian counterparts
were prosecuting Milosevic.
The so-called Zionist movement is not a Jewish movement. It is a
propaganda front. Take a look at the US regimes, British regimes and the
European regimes. The French president hollers at Iran but he does not
holler at Israel. These regimes have hijacked the original Zionist agenda.
I am surprised that the Lutheran representative declared that the
catastrophe in Palestine was political. No. It is about good and evil. Hamas
is contending with European, British, Russian, US, and Israeli evil
That is Church business! The WCC must go back to its people and seek a
true expression of Christianity through protest and the ballot boxes. We need
regime changes in the West It is time to enter the arena and not hover
above it.

314

The arena is not Palestine; and walking Palestinian children to school

is not the solution. We must clean out the roaches from our own countries so
that the Palestinian children can walk in peace and alone in the whole of the
true Palestine.
Israel, if indeed it had legal tenure, has forfeited that right by its
actions and intent. Its territorial grant should be revoked. But is Israel
leading the West or is the West leading Israel? Was Israel created for
the Jews or for the West? Has Israel long lost its independence of the US
and the West? Was it ever the master of its own destiny? Does it owe its soul
to the devils that created it? Is Israel the dog or just the tail?
Any hideous and brutal political policy can be forced to a halt. We
need to heave and push with a militant resistance for peace. We must be
objectively honest in our approach to the issues. We must first identify the
true criminals, the masterminds.
The secret of Israels arrogance and unilateralism lies in the
US backing, which has turned it into a real rogue state. Hassan Hanizadeh
recollected some events during the creation of Israel to prove that the Jewish
state had resorted to terrorism right from the beginning.
When Mahmud al-Natsha returned his humble house, he saw the
lifeless bodies of his wife and children. The Haganas terrorist attack left 200
dead just in Kafar Qaseem, all of whom were innocent women and children.
Terror had filled all the villages in Palestine and most families began to head
for the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, seeking safety from the terrorist
attacks.
On the very same day, i.e. May 15, 1948, Zionist leader David Ben
Gurian read out the announcement of the establishment of the Zionist regime
at a conference In less than 20 minutes, US President Harry Truman
issued a statement recognizing the Israeli regimeand in less than three
days, most European countries recognized the newly created regime
Concurrently with this, with the cooperation of Zionist capitalists and
the Jewish Agency, the British government, which feigned concern for the
lives of Palestinians, leased ships under the flags of various countries in
order to transfer the traumatized Palestinians to neighbouring countries.
During the process of this transfer from occupied territorieshundreds of
Palestinian women and children were drowned in the Mediterranean Sea
when their boats capsized.

315

The first objective was to safeguard the Suez Canal for the free
passage of British and French warships from the Atlantic to the Indian
Ocean Their second objective was to establish a non-Islamic country in
the critical Fertile Crescent in order to prevent the expansion of political
Islam on the western shores of the Mediterranean. Their third objective was
to maintain security in the oil fields of the Middle East, because Britains
initial test drillings in the region showed that the Middle East was sitting on
a sea of oil.
During these years, with the financial support of the United States
and other Western countries, Israel has occupied over 80,000 square
kilometers of Arab territories(out of which) Israel has kept control of the
West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sheba Farms.
Over 150 UN Security Council resolutions against Israel have
been vetoed by the United States in the past 58 year. Now, after years of
struggle, the Palestinian forces have decided to establish a Palestinian
government. However, the United States, the European Union, and Israel are
trying to ignore the vote of the majority and are economically boycotting
Hamas, the party which gained control of the Palestinian government
through a democratic election.
James J Zogby wrote, it is former Prime Minister Ariel Sharons
plan that is bearing fruit today. The old warrior was elected in 2001 on a
platform committed to ending the Oslo peace process and destroying any
semblance of Palestinian self-government.
Sharon was able to declare the peace process stalled, requiring
unilateral Israeli action The bizarre Bush vision, first pronounced in June
of 2002, which declared that Palestinians first had to establish a working
democracy before they could gain their freedom, also played a part.
Today, Palestinians are trapped, with no way out. Hamas won their
victory not, as our polling showed, because of corruption, but because after
12 years of a peace process in which Palestinians became less free and
poorer, peace had been given a bad name and the party associated with it
had been discredited. The Israelis were now able to say they had no one with
which to negotiate and get away with it.
While most Palestinians and Israelis want a just peace, support for
these disempowered majorities requires external support. Europe cares, but
will only act within self-imposed limits. And the US cannot be expected to
act any differently than it has in the past several years.

316

Arab leadership is, therefore, required. A clear message must be sent

to the Palestinians and the West. Palestinians must be urged to stop the
violence because only Israel wins The West must be told, and not quietly,
to make it clear to Israels leadership that their behaviour towards the
Palestinians is not just an obstacle to peace, it is criminal and will not be
tolerated
Fred Schlomka mentioned the nature of Israels unjust behaviour. The
system of fortifications called security fence by the Israeli government
includes 8-metre-high walls that often cut through neighbourhoods and
isolate Palestinian villages on the Israeli side. It is fast defining the new
borders of the Israeli state despite repeated government statements over the
past four years that the fence was for purely security consideration.
Maintaining a cauldron of resentment among an occupied
population is a recipe for disaster, and continuing repressive measures
designed to keep the lid on outbursts of protest by Palestinians will only
serve to stir the pot. Israelis want peace and quiet, and are less interested in
peace with justice, but the ongoing government tactics will bring them
neither.
Gabriela Becker talked about Israeli crimes. It is part of Israels
quest to drown out the link between Israeli political slogans and its
crimes, and thus maintain the horrid reality forced upon the Palestinian
people through targeted killings and assassinations, aerial attacks,
incursions, arrests, confiscations, demolitions, destruction, closures, forced
impoverishment and humiliation that persist on a daily basis.
The chokehold on the already sealed Gaza Strip is accompanied by
an onslaught of Israeli missile and mortar attacks numbering in the hundreds
each day, the occupation confirming repeatedly the way in which it plans
to deal with Palestinians.
In Jerusalem alone, the Israeli declaration that Qalandiya checkpoint
in northern Jerusalem be turned into International Atarot Terminal as part
of the final borders policy took place without a hitch. the same applies to all
Israeli measures in occupied Jerusalem confiscations, demolitions and
the completion of the separation wall which continue with
international complicity.
The recently completed Zeitim terminal in the eastern Jerusalem
neighbourhood of Tur (Mount of Olives), Zaeem and Ezarya closing-off
once and for all the eastern entrance to the city, splits these Jerusalem
suburbs from each other, from Jerusalem, and from the West Bank. To
317

finalize its plans to control the Jerusalem and demarcate borders, the
occupation recently sealed Northern Jerusalem neighbourhoods with the
separation wall, checkpoints and Israeli-contrived alternative roads thus
directing Ram and Bir Nabala away from Jerusalem towards Ramallah,
sealing shut another West Bank ghetto.
Israel can continue to create all the facts on the grounds it needs,
as it manoeuvres terminology with repeated success to the extent that its
public and international relations so eagerly received and devoured are
built on painting an inverse picture of reality. The immense past and present
international support for Israel is testament to the virtual carte blanche
offered to the occupation.
Final borders were being demarcated from at least the 1993 closure
and checkpoint policy, moving forward a process where claims of an end to
occupation under slogans of Palestinian self-rule were meant only to serve
the interests of widening Israeli control. In the face of continued global
complicity, these policies should be seen as the agreed means, between
Israel and its allies, to normalize the occupation, setting into motion a
spectrum of terms and phrases that play down power discrepancies and
allow for parallel processes where rhetoric exists on the one hand and the
reality exists on the other.
In view of the above it can be said that the stance of Hamas is the
same which founder fathers of Israel had and as quoted by Asad Abdul
Rahman. Ben Gurian once candidly admitted to a colleague, if I were an
Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural. We have
taken their country? We come from Israel, its true, but 2,000 years ago, and
what is that to them.
There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was
that their fault? They only see one thing. We have come here and stolen their
country, a remark was made to Nahum Goldman, as reported in his book
The Jewish Paradox.
This guilt has always remained at the back of every Israeli and their
backers mind. That is why they are least interested in peace through just
resolution of the dispute. They fully understand that stolen land can only be
retained by force.

CONCLUSION

318

Only a few incidents of killings of innocent people, including women

and children, have been uncovered. There would be many which remained
un-probed and even unreported. And, who knows that these soldiers of the
civilized world could be involved in killings for which the so-called death
squads have been blamed?
The brutality of American soldiers as revealed by the reported
incidents has nothing to do with lack of training. This is mere reflection of
American psyche of ruthlessness and sharp-shooting to eliminate the enemy,
presumed or otherwise. No amount of training can cure this mental
sickness.
This ailment has been further aggravated by American philosophy of
winning wars which revolves around mass killings; a lesson learnt from
bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The amassing of lethal weapons since
then is part of that philosophy. This has sunk deep in the minds of American
soldiers that killing is the only way to victory.
Bloodshed in Iraq is not likely to end in foreseeable future despite
democracy progressing by leaps and bounds. Because, Bush has repeatedly
boasted of not betraying the liberated Iraqis and the Iraqis, in turn, hate the
presence of foreign troops in their country.

For Israel, the sun is shining brightly to harvest and thrash the grain
for itself and leave the pulp for Palestinians. With this attitude of Israel and
the civilized world, there will never be peace in Middle East as long the
illegal Jewish state exists in whatever shape in might be. It must cease to
exist for the peace and security of dozens of countries of the region. Some
day, may be in distant future, this reality shall dawn upon the international
community.
8th June 2006

319

TENACIOUS TEHRAN - II
On 13th May, Iran warned European states not to repeat the mistake of
forcing an end to talks by demanding it to stop uranium enrichment. Tehran
was ready to talk to any country except Israel. Next day, Ahmedinejad said
any European proposals that ask Iran to halt uranium enrichment would be
invalid.
The same day a Sunni militant group in southeast Iran claimed 12
execution-style murders. On 15th May, Iranian troops killed ten militants,
who were involved in roadside murders. This is one of the areas identified
by the Crusaders where they planned to support dissidents.
On 16th May, Russia and China once again opposed the use of force
against Iran. Tehran insisted on continuation of uranium enrichment. The
European Union was reported considering offering a nuclear reactor to Iran

320

to strike a bargain. On 20th May, it was reported that world powers discussed
dropping UNSC involvement in Irans nuclear file if Tehran agreed to
suspend uranium enrichment, but could push for selective sanctions backed
by the threat of force if it didnt. Next day, Iran again refused to suspend
uranium enrichment.
Bush and Olmert in their meeting on 24th May agreed to thwart Irans
suspected nuclear programme. Bush reiterated his pledge to defend Israel
against attack by Iran. The same day, demonstrations were held in Tehrans
two main universities against changing of university heads and forced
retirement of some professors.
Next day, Blair said that Britain did not want conflict with Iran.
Nejad, however, accused foreign enemies of trying to provoke ethnic
tensions in Iran. On 26th May, ElBaradei warned that world powers must
renounce nuclear arms or accept that more and more countries would
manage to secure their own bombs. Nukes breed nukes, he said.
On 27th May, Ahmadinejad wanted Europe on his side. Next day, Iran
and Russia concluded high-level talks but agreed to continue parleys. The
chief of Russias Security Council, Igor Ivanov, said Russia opposes any use
of force against Iran over its nuclear programme. Khamenei ruled out retreat
on nuclear issue.
The same day, Ahmedinejad asked Germans to overcome holocaust
guilt. Four people were killed and 43 injured during protests in northwest
Iran over publishing of a cartoon deemed insulting Azeris. This is another
area where the Crusaders are looking for the dissidents.
The US kept pushing Europe for curbs against Iran. On 30 th May, Iran
expressed willingness to resume talks with EU, while praising Russia and
China for opposing US push for sanctions. NAM backed Iran over its
nuclear programme.
On 31st May, Rice announced, to underscore our commitment to a
diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran
fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the
United States will come to the table. The only purpose of coming to table
after meeting the laid down could be to have dinner with Ahmedinejad.
The same day, Bush said, I believe this problem can be solved
diplomatically, and I want to give it every effort to do so Our message to
the Iranians is that one, you wont have a weapon. And two, that you must

321

verifiably suspend any programs at which point we will come to the

negotiating table to work on a way forward. Way forward; to where?
Next day, UNSC members welcomed US policy shift, but Tehran
reiterated that its nuclear work is irreversible. On 1 st June, Bush warned Iran
of UNSC action. Tehran rejected US conditions for talks. China opposed
arbitrary sanctions. Six powers (5+1) agreed on package over Iran nuclear
issue in Vienna. China voiced support to resolve the crisis. Moscow
excluded all recourse to use of force.
On 3rd June, Ahmedinejad softened his stance as Solana was due in
Tehran with fresh proposals, but Rumsfeld branded Iran as leading terrorist
nation. Next day Iran warned of global energy crisis if attacked. Khamenei
said Tehran wont bow before threat. Rice responded, just wait and see on
Irans oil threats. She said Iran has only few weeks to accept European
proposals. Hans Blix said that one of the consequences of the war on terror
is a convenient disguise for the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
On 6th June, Solana handed over package of incentives in Tehran.
Details of the package were not disclosed, but reportedly US offered nuclear
technology to Iran. Laranjani said incentives contained both positive steps
and ambiguities. Iran will respond after analyzing the package thoroughly.
Merkel discussed Iran row with Chinese Premier on telephone. Next day, US
insisted on suspension of enrichment of uranium.
Meanwhile, the analysts in last four weeks kept debating Irans
nuclear programme. The views expressed were generally the same as
enumerated in the Part-I, but the debate took a new turn when the US
announced its conditional willingness for direct talks with Iran.

US BIAS
A lot more was said about the US bias against Iran. Dr Muzaffar Iqbal
mentioned the reason behind this bias. For the United States and
Europe, the rise of Iran as a major regional power is not acceptable for a
variety of reasons. In their geopolitical considerations, they have assigned
that status to India whose sheer size, population, and secular character makes
it an acceptable choice for them
The case of Iran is different, not only because it is a Muslim country
though that is certainly a consideration but also because its rise as a

322

regional power will upset the entire Middle Eastern equation as

established immediately after World War II.
What is of importance in the present situation is an already-changed
reality: since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iran has made significant
progress in all realms of its national life, not least in the areas of science
and technology. During the last fifteen years, there has been a lot of
investment in education, in the building of infrastructure, and in attaining a
development capability beyond anyones estimates
Thus, it is not merely Irans progress in the fields of nuclear science
and technology that is perceived as a threat by Europe and the United States,
it is its overall rise and strength that is regarded as a threat to the Middle
Eastern equation.
Sameh Rashid added, it is self-evident that the American position on
a nuclear Iran is influenced by what is taking place in Iraq and the Iranian
role there. Thus, the developments taking place in Iraq, and the IranianAmerican dialogue on Iraq, cannot be separated from the nuclear issue and
its implications
Following that is the issue of the entire Arab-Israel conflict, including
the sub-issues on the situation in southern Lebanon and the close
relationship between Iran and Hezbollah, as well as Hamas being in
control of the Palestinian government, which also has good relations with
Tehran. Finally, there is the direct road between Tehran and Tel Aviv, which
witnessed two decades ago, the Iran-gate scandal
Paul Craig Roberts had more to add. Why did the Bush regime create
a crisis over Iran? The answer is that the Bush regime is desperate to
widen the war in the Middle East Why is the Bush regime concerned
about what Iran might do in the future? Is it because the US government
intends to continue its bullying in the Middle East and is worried that Iran
will get tired of it and develop nuclear weapons as a check on US hegemony
over the Muslim World? Why does the Bush regime think that its interest in
the Middle East takes priority over the interests of the countries that are
located there?
Olmert is helping the Bush regime use fear to prepare Americans
to accept an attack on Iran, just as Dick Cheney and Condi Rice invoked
images of mushroom clouds to prepare Americans for the illegal invasion of
Iraq Not a day passes without new threats and lies issuing from Dick
Cheney, Bonkers Bolton, and Condi Rice, and no one holds them
accountable. The US media is proud to be complicit in lies and war crimes.
323

Edward S Herman and David Peterson linked it to the overall

Americas ongoing global war. The US has committed supreme
international crime, against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq in 1999, 2001
and 2003the fourth aggression is already underway, because once
again, as in the Iraq case, the United States has been attacking Iran for many
months, and not just with verbal insults and threats. It has been flying
unmanned aerial surveillance drones over Iran since 2004; it has infiltrated
combat and reconnaissance teams into Iran.
It has bestowed an ambiguous protected status upon the Mujahidine-Khalq, a group which, since 1997, the US Department of State has
designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but a group that the Washington
regime now uses to launch cross-border attacks on Iran from within USoccupied Iraq; and its Israeli client have repeatedly threatened larger scale
and more open attacks. This pre-invasion aggression was an important
feature of the over-all aggression against Iraq, where the US and British
greatly increased their spikes of activity with massive bombing well before
the March 19, 2003 invasion
On the home front, with the acceptance of the seriousness of the
manufactured crisis by the mainstream media and Democrats, and with
leading politicos like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh even egging Bush on,
the noise creates its own self-fulfilling pressures on the leadership that
manufactured the crisis, who now must do something about it to avoid
political loss.
Two analysts were of the view that to sustain these frames, Bush
Administration has to suppress major facts. They enumerated some facts
about Americas hypocrisy and double standards:
There is no proof to support allegation that Iran plans to make nuclear
weapons.
America and Israel have nuclear weapons and have attacked other
countries in the past several times, whereas Iran has not done that.
The reality that Iran is much less dangerous than Israel and US which
frequently threaten use of nuclear weapons in self defence.
Iran may be secretive and for good reasons, but it has signed NPT,
whereas Israel has not.

324

 Israel and America are virtual theocratic states influenced by religious

parties whose leaders are arrogant, racist and materialistic and both
pose threat to global peace.
Both Israel and America have supported terrorists on much larger
scale than Iran.
The two countries have continuously destabilized the Middle East as
against Iran.
They added, hence, the United States not only has unclean hands, but
its own illegal policies and threats pose a clear and present danger that
the UN and international community should be addressing right now.
Furthermore, not only is Iran not an immediate threat, but given the US
threat to Iran and the US refusal to work toward the elimination of nuclear
weapons and to pledge non-use against nuclear weapons-free countries
The mainstream media have followed the party line on the Iran
crisis in treating EU, UN and IAEA responses, the media never suggest
that the real problem is containing the United States. In the comical version
offered and hardly contested in the media, it is often suggested that there is a
retreat of appeasement of Iran, and that if the world is to avoid another
Munich, and the Security Council fails to confront the Iranian threat, it is
up to the United States to form an international coalition to disarm the
regime. But there is never a hint that the problem might be appeasement of
the United States.
Eric Runder quoted Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector.
Let me remind everybody that nothing Iran is accused of doing is
illegal. He also quoted Robert McNamara. I would characterize current
US nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and
dreadfully dangerous.
Since 1999, when the Senate rejected the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
the US has developed a new generation of mini-nukes, also called bunker
busters, which US officials have openly threatened to use against Iran
a clear violation of international law and the NPT.
Eric Margolis wrote, no Western leaders have yet raised the issue
of the proverbial 800 pound gorilla at the tea party that everyone politely
pretends not to notice Israels nuclear arsenal. Last year, Mohammed
ElBaradei, the UNs chief nuclear arms inspector, made an official visit to
Israel. He was not allowed to weapons production sections of Israels secret

325

nuclear complex at Dimona, and did not even mention Israels undeclared,
un-inspected nuclear arsenal.
Israels nuclear weapons can strike anywhere in the Arab World,
as far east as Iran and Pakistan. Israel is believed to possess atomic,
hydrogen, and neutron warheads. Its new submarine-launched cruise
missiles give it the ability to strike most major targets on earth.
The analyst went on to say that Israel has proven inclination to use
nuclear weapons. Memories of the 1973 Arab-Israel War remain vivid: as
Syrian forces advanced to the edge of the Golan Heights, Soviet satellites
detected Israel nuclear weapons being readied for launch. Syria abruptly
halted its advance on Golan in fear of a nuclear strike.
Dave Zirin & John Cox pointed out Crusaders meanness in
mingling politics with sports. German and US politicians have seized on the
tournament to intensify the saber rattling aimed at Tehranseveral leading
politicians in both countries have called for the Iranian team to be banned
from the World Cup. In this spirit of tolerance and peace, Berlins liberal
daily Der Tagesspiegel ran a cartoon that depicted Iranian soccer players
as suicide bombers.
Merkel has further stoked this sentiment by likening Irans nuclear
plans to the threat posed by the Nazis. Italian reform minister Robert
Calderoli of the anti-immigrant Northern League called on the international
soccer federation (FIFA) to exclude Iran and other rogue states, and in
recent weeks British Conservatives perhaps distraught over their own
teams dwindling prospects, after an injury to their best player have gotten
in on the act In the recent gambit, on May 12 a group of European Union
representatives presented a letter to FIFA demanding that Iran be evicted
from the games.
The hypocrisy of the quasi-extortion is overwhelming: Iran should
be banned because its leaders indulge in belligerent rhetoric and attempt to
develop a nuclear programme, yet no one advocates the exclusion of the
United States, even though it is engaged in two military occupations, in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and President Bush has refused to rule out a nuclear strike
on Iran.
What is really going on here is an old trick of the warmongers;
which is that you equate hurtful statements to your enemy with an actual
military threat, and make a weak and vulnerable enemy look like a strong,

326

menacing foe. Then no one can complain when you pounce on the enemy
and reduce his country to flames and rubble.
Gary Leupp discussed another ugly aspect of the meanness. Canadas
National Post has apologized for the dis-informational article about Iran it
published on its front page one should inquire as to how this happened in
the first place. The Post had reported the Iranian Parliament had passed
a law establishing separate dress codes for religious minorities,
Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour
schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable
Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking
hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean).
This was absurd. The one Jewish member of the 190-member
Iranian Majlis, Moris Motamed, among others refuted it noting that Iranians
would never put up with such a law. He added, our enemies seek to create
tension among the religious minorities with such news and to exploit the
situation to their benefit.
The legislator must surely count Iranian-American journalist Amir
Taheri, author of the nonsense, among these enemies. But what led Taheri
to produce a sensationalistic piece, drawing immediate damning comment
from Canadian Prime Minister? Taheri is after all a man of apparently
impeccable journalistic credentials Quite a range of editors apparently
consider competent. So I think it unlikely his piece resulted from mere
journalistic sloppiness. His most credible credential has been his antiTehran regime sentiment.
Taheri was also between 1972 and 1979 executive editor-in-chief of
Kayhan, Irans main daily newspaper under the Shahs regime. He
contributes to the neocon National Review and his speaking engagements
are handled by the warmongering neocon Benador Associates PR firm. He
and these colleagues have repeatedly urged a US attack to produce regime
change in Iran. The neocons, of course, have shown themselves more than
willing to employ deceit in building the case for military action; it is part of
their Straussian modus oprendi.
Looking at the big picture, what theyve done so far is to persuade
much of the American public that Iran is doing something illegal in
enriching uranium and insisting on its right under the Non-Proliferation
Treaty to do so; that Iran is definitely trying to build nuclear weapons; and
that Iran has declared its intention of wiping Israel off the map. The first of

327

these is untrue. The NPT expressly allows all signatory nations to master the
nuclear cycle under IAEA monitoring. The second is unproven.
To explain the category to which Taheri belongs, he narrated a story
of Gulf War in which a teenage girl appeared before Congressional hearing.
She testified that as a volunteer at al-Addan Hospital in Kuwait City she
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.
It was later revealed that the girl testifying was a daughter of the Kuwaiti
ambassador to the US, and that she was lying through her teeth. But the lie
worked very, very well, validated by Colin Powell and others in the first
Bush administration, and by reputable press organs.
But the Jewish rep in the Iranian parliament (who has been outspoken
before) is surely on target when he suggests that some seek to exploit the
situation to their benefit. They do so by exploiting ignorance, prejudice,
fear, and gullibility. They churn out so much disinformation one has the
sinking sense that however one tries to expose it, their plans in the short
term will prevail. But those paying attention have to try, and keep raising the
slogan: Stop the Attack on Iran.
Amir Taheri was not alone. The Jordan Times had also rushed to join
the holy campaign. Iran has laws in the pipeline that promise to make
life in the country even more difficult. One such piece of legislation aims
to impose a standard Islamic garment on all Iranians, meaning that Iranians
will no longer be able to dress as they wish.
There is an even more difficult to understand addition to the
restriction: The colours of the projected uniforms are limited to somber
hues. As if life were so rosy for them! The new regimentation in the lifestyle
of Iranians is supposed to apply even to children as young as four. It doesnt
make for a very mind-stimulating environment, nor for desire to stand out
even if, at this stage, only through the choice of colour for the garb.
The other piece of legislation aims to make it compulsory for nonMuslims in Iran to wear insignias on their clothing that identify them as
Christians, Jews or followers of whatever other religion. The Christian
would wear a red badge, while the Jews would have to wear a yellow sign.
This Iranian regime must be aware that it is bound by international
norms to respect the rights of the people in the country. And it is simply
unacceptable to discriminate between people on the basis of religion.
Making Christians and Jews by having them wear badges is a clear act of
328

discrimination bearing the ominous hue of the dark days of World War
II. Neither Islam nor international standards tolerate this kind of behaviour.
Some analysts observed the solution lies in abolishing the weapons of
mass destruction. I Hassan wrote, the fact is that a nuclear device is such
an evil thing that no one should have it. During the First World War,
poison gas was invented and used. After that war, at a world conference, all
states accepted that poison gas was evil and must not be used. Since then,
poison gas has been prohibited and not used.
A nuclear device is far worse than any poisonous gas because of the
sheer number of people that it can kill. It should be similarly banned and no
one user should act as an arbiter, being itself in possession of the device.
Such an arbiter should forsake its own bomb and thereafter insist that no one
must have one.
Jonathan Power mentioned the suggestions of Hans Blix to abolish
WMDs. The planning for major war has grown more alarming in all manner
of ways proliferation certainly but, not least in the relatively recent
statements of the US, Russia, the UK and France who, signaling a
momentous shift in military doctrine, say that they are prepared to use
their nuclear weapons for war fighting and not just for deterrence, as
during the Cold War.
When Hans Blix was the UN inspector charged with investigating
whether Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction, he once said that
any one can hang out a sign beware of dog, but it doesnt mean they have a
dog. In Saddam Husseins case this turned out to be correct.
Libya recently gave up its nuclear program. But while it was going
on there was no dog sign and no one knew that they had made as much
progress as they had. With North Korea they did hang out the sign but we
still dont know how much is bluff and how much is real. With Iran is still a
series of question marks.
Blix said they shy away from the obvious: If they themselves have
real dogs with nuclear or even biological teeth and they say they are more
prepared to use them than in the Cold War days why should these other
new would-be dog owners listen to them?
First, the Blix commission argues, we have to take military threats
off the table. The proliferation of nuclear weapons cannot be solved by the
immediate play of military hardball No country can be expected at this

329

stage to unilaterally forgo military options (as long as they remain

conventional) but the sword can be sheathed while negotiations progress.
Second, we have to re-engage with the legal commitments of the
central bargain of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The nuclear-haves
must take rapid steps to sharply reduce their nuclear armaments. Whilst
the goal must be zero, there can be no excuses for not immediately halving
their arsenals.

OPTIONS
Amir Taheri is one of the staunch supporters of regime change
through military action. He wrote, theoretically, the whole issue could be
resolved in an afternoon. ElBaradei goes to Tehran, talks to whomever the
Iranian leaders assigned to talk to him and is convinced that the Islamic
republic is no longer violating the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. He then returns to Vienna, convenes the board of governors of the
IAEA, and reports the good news. The board of governors then writes to the
Security Council inviting it to share the joy of these glad tidings and stop
looking for imaginative ways to deal with the Islamic republic The
crucial question that must be answered therefore is simple: Can we trust the
Islamic republic?
He identifies himself with the Crusaders as is evident from the word
we. He also preferred to refer to Iran as Islamic republic to urge on the
Crusaders to invade. He repeatedly used this word knowing the mindset of
the Crusaders who do not trust anything which is Islamic in any way.
He added, if answer is yes, then the Islamic republic, with or without
nuclear weapons, instantly ceases to be a threat to anyone, including its
neighbours. If, on the other hand, the Islamic republic is seen as
untrustworthy then no amount of diplomatic jugglery could reassure
those who might feel threatened by it, again with or without nuclear
weapons.
Interestingly, not even those who, for a wide range of reasons, back
the Islamic republic in the current crisis are prepared to provide it with the
needed certificate of trustworthiness. He meant that the regime must be
changed whether it posses nuclear weapons or not.
According to information from Tehran, the issue of what strategy to
adopt was widely discussed at an informal meeting with the Supreme

330

Guide Ali Khamenei and attended by Ahmedinejad along with top military
commanders. Ahmedinejad succeeded in convincing the decision-makers
that there was no need to retreat when one was sure whether or not any
meaningful move would or, indeed, could be made against Iran.
So far, of course, Ahmedinejad has proved right. It is still Tehran
that largely controls the momentum of events. It could, for example, cool
things down by phasing out the mass production of centrifuges that could be
used for enriching uranium to weapons grade specifications. It could also
decree a temporary end to all work at the plutonium plant in Arak. Last but
not least, it could submit the NPTs additional protocols for consideration by
the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis).
David B Rivkin Jr and Lee A Casey found the legal basis for action
against Iran. Ahmedinejads words clearly violate Article 2.4 of the UN
Charter. This provision, to which Iran has agreed, requires all UN member
states to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Both the nature and context of Ahmedinejads manifesto set it
apart from such harsh but legally permissible rhetoric as President
Bushs talk of an axis of evil and of President Ronald Reagans reference to
the Soviet Union as an evil empire.
Since Israel has not committed aggression against Iran,
Ahmedinejads statements cannot be justified as self-defence. They have, in
fact, created a legally cognizable threat that can, and should, be
addressed by the Security Council under its Chapter VII powers, which are
concerned with threats to peace.
Seeking the councils intervention on Irans illegal threats to use
force makes excellent diplomatic sense. Such an approach would provide
multiple and reinforcing benefits A serious debate on Ahmedinejads
illegal threat would give the United States a unique opportunity to focus
the Security Council on the shrill anti-Israel rhetoric emanating not just from
Iran but also from numerous other Islamic countries. This rhetoric fosters
regional tensions and nurtures the dangerous jihadist sentiment.
China and Russia would be hard-pressed to oppose the effort.
Both of those countries have routinely clocked their objections to EU-US
policy toward Iran in the language of international law, arguing, for example
that Iran has a legal right to pursue civilian nuclear activities.

331

Henry A Kissinger urged working for internal change in Iran

through sanctions and means other than outright military action, at least for
the time being. He said Ahmedinejads letter merited its rejection, because
it was a ploy to obstruct UN Security Council deliberations. He added, it
may also have intentions beyond the tactical and propagandistic, and its
demagoguery may be a way to get the radical part of the Iranian public used
to dialogue with the United States.
The world is faced with the nightmarish prospect that nuclear
weapons will become a standard part of national armament and wind up in
terrorist hands One need only imagine what would have happened had any
of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Istanbul
or Bali involved even the crudest nuclear weapon.
He remarked that six-party negotiations with North Korea seems
more advanced as compared to four-party talks with Iran. He said that
despite accepting that North Koreas tactic of stringing out the period
between each session, perhaps to gain time for strengthening its nuclear
arsenal. He appreciated some sort of agreement reached on nuclear issue
with North Korea, but did not mention that it has quitted NPT. On the other
hand, he was concerned that there isnt any agreement with Iran, but he
avoided mentioning that Tehran has signed NPT.
About public debate on America joining talks with suspected
proliferators, he said, with respect to Korea that is a subsidiary issue. The
six-power talks provide adequate opportunity for bilateral exchange of
views. But, he opposed bilateral talks with Korea apprehending that
present partners might choose to place the onus for breaking every
deadlock on Washington, in effect isolating the United States The same
considerations apply more strongly to bilateral negotiations with Iran at
this stage. He conceded that if America is prepared to negotiate with Iran, it
must be possible to devise a multilateral venue.
An infinite continuation of the stalemate would amount to defacto acquiescence by the international community in letting new entrants
into the nuclear club. In Asia, it would spell the near-certain addition of
South Korea and Japan; in the Middle East, countries such as Turkey, Egypt
and even Saudi Arabia could enter the field.
Radical elements throughout the Islamic World and elsewhere
would gain strength from the successful defiance of the major nuclear
powers Iran, and eventually other countries of similar orientation, would
be able to use nuclear arsenals to protect their revolutionary activities around
332

the world. The staunch supporter of Jewish cause was hinting at not
allowing the Muslims to gain strength.
There is an argument on behalf of acquiescing in proliferation which
holds that new nuclear countries have proved responsible in the past. But
this is not endorsed by experience. Pakistan proliferated its nuclear
technology through the A Q Khan project. North Korea has been an active
proliferators.
Diplomacy needs a new impetus. As a first step, the United States
and its negotiating partners have to agree on how much time is available for
negotiations The next step is to recognize the difference between
multiparty negotiations and a preferred strategy of regime change
Focusing on regime change as the road to denuclearization confuses the
issue. The United States should oppose nuclear weapons in North Korea and
Iran regardless of the government that builds them.
The diplomacy appropriate to denuclearization is comparable to the
containment policy that helped win the Cold War: no pre-emptive challenge
to the external security of the adversary, but firm resistance to attempts to
project it abroad and reliance on domestic forces to bring about internal
change.
The sanity prevailed in general as many analysts opposed military
action. Farooq Zaman from Lahore wrote, any attempt by the US and its
allies to sabotage Irans nuclear programme and destabilize the country will
be playing with dire consequences. In such an event, terrorism that is
already on the rampage will gain more vitality and inevitably spread far
and wide
Abbas Amanat opined that confrontation wont stop from acquisition
of nuclear weapons. If the United States resorts to sanctions, or worse, to
some military response, the outcome would be not only disastrous but, in the
long run, transient And no doubt the Islamic regime will amply exploit
these collective memories to advance its nuclear program even as it stifles
voices of democratic dissent. Even more than before, Iranians will blame
outside powers for their misfortunes and choose not to focus on their own
troubled road to modernity.
If that course continues, Iran will most likely succeed, for ill or for
good, in finding its own nuclear holy grail. Legend has it that the Persian
king Hushang, an equivalent of Prometheus, introduced fire to the Iranians.

333

But unlike his Greek mythological counterpart, who stole it from gods, he
accidentally discovered it while fighting with a dragon.
Nicholas Blanford said, one alarming scenario gaining attention is
Irans nuclear facilities come under attack by the US or Israel, it could
inadvertently trigger a violent confrontation between Lebanons Hezbollah
and the Israeli military.
Earlier this month, Major General Amos Gilad, a senior Israeli
defence ministry official, said that while Irans main strategic arm was its
long-range Shihab-3 missiles, their second arm is Hezbollah, which has
13,000 to 14,000 rockets that threaten Israel.
Many non-Shiite Lebanese are uncomfortable with a political party
possessing weapons, saying it risks Lebanon becoming embroiled in external
conflicts. Hezbollah officials, however, say that its weapons are for the
defence of Lebanon, not Iran. Iran is capable of launching its own
retaliation, says Ahmad Malli, a member of Hezbollahs political council.
Its not logical for Iran as a regional power to ask a small organization to
attack Israel.
The domestic constraints on Hezbollah convince many analysts,
including some critics, that the party is unlikely to attack Israel in a Kneejerk reaction to a military strike against its Iranian backer However, Mr
Malli offered another scenario in which Israel launches a pre-emptive strike
against Hezbollah to degrade Tehrans retaliatory options If Israel
attacks Iran, it may well attack other targets at the same time, including
Hezbollah in Lebanon, he says. In that case, Hezbollah has the right to
defend itself and Lebanon with all possible means. Far from a theoretical
concept, Mallis scenario is one that is under serious consideration by Israel,
says Gerald Steinberg, professor of politics at Israels Bat Ilan University.
Paul Craig Roberts saw flaws in being Israel-centric. The US cannot
forever dominate the Middle East in behalf of its interests and Israels. The
US is running out of resources. The US is heavily in debt, yet continues to
hemorrhage red ink. Washington is dependent on foreigners to finance its
wars. Off shoring has diminished Americas ability to manufacture. The US
is now dependent on China for advanced technology products and on Europe
and Asia for manufactured goods.
The American middle class is beginning to experience employment
problems and income stagnation. The neocons idea that the US can patrol
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria in perpetuity is insane. The Bush
regime has proven that the US cannot even occupy Baghdad.
334

Unless the US government intends nuclear genocide against

Muslims, it cannot prevail in war in the Middle East. A solution in the
Middle East requires diplomacy and goodwill, not threats and
aggression. Yet, the Bush regime refuses to even meet with Iranian
leaders By refusing to meet, talk, and negotiate, Bush is telling Iranians
that they have no choice. Either they comply and do what Bush demands, or
they will be attacked. That is the Iranian Crisis in nutshell.
Annan called for restraint. The News criticized US for ignoring the
call. The State Department spokesman reminded reporters at the Pentagon
of the warnings by President George W Bush that a nuclear strike on Iran
was an option with his government. Meanwhile, President Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad spurned as walnuts and chocolate to a child the European
Unions call for Iran to permanently give up nuclear enrichment in exchange
for a package of incentives
These developments are setbacks to Dr Annans efforts. However, the
secretary general has become an activist in the closing months of his second
and last term, going to the extent this month of criticizing the US position on
Iran. This holds out hope that the situation wont turn into a disaster.
Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri advised Iran. While nuclear weapons have
their positive value to act as a deterrent against predatory and hegemonic
neighbours, the modern state system is residing its paradigm of security
with emphasis on human security: Greater threats now seem to emanate
from within than without. Iran is a developing country It needs to export
its abundant resources to a friendly world and attract major investments for
infrastructure and development in oil and gas sectors.
Joseph S Nye hoped that Russian alternative could be helpful in
exercising the restraint. If Iran were interested solely in peaceful uses, the
Russian offer or some other plan (such as placing stocks of low enriched
uranium in Iran) could meet their needs. Irans insistence on enrichment
inside the country is widely attributed to its desire to produce highlyenriched uranium for a bomb.
After rejecting military action and sanctions, the analyst talked of a
package. Through a credible intermediary, the US could offer to consider
security guarantees and relief from existing sanctions if Iran agrees to forego
domestic enrichment and accept the Russian offer, perhaps garbed as an
IAEA-backed international consortium in which Iran could participate. This
would mean abandoning the temptations of coercive regime change that
hamstrung American diplomacy in Bushs first term.
335

By increasing economic and cultural ties, diplomacy might unleash

the soft power that could contribute to more gradual regime transformation
over the longer term. Meanwhile, such an approach might avoid the costly
use of force and buy time for a more benign outcome than what lies at the
end of the current path of events.
Mohammad Akif Jamal wrote, three important questions now need to
be tackled by the US administration. The first is, who will deprive Iran of
the ability to rise to its aspirations, and how? The second, who will pay the
bill for the costly operation? And third, how would the expected
confrontation affect Americas broader Middle East project?
Irans edge-of-the-cliff policy will soon come to a halt. It is not far
from the point where it will need to make a decision either to go ahead with
its programme, regardless of the consequences, or to retreat to avoid the
consequences of rejecting a Security Council resolution. He concluded,
Iran might accept the Russian offer to enrich uranium on its behalf,
especially considering that Tehran has not officially rejected this offer yet.
The Crusaders urge for action against Iran has direct bearing on
security and stability of the Arab states in the region. But, these countries
have not adopted a clear policy on the issue, though it is because they had
failed to adopt such policy even in case of Palestine and Iraq.
Sameh Rashid wrote, a unified Arab stance on these issues is
necessary, but not enough. There must be an actual Arab movement, and the
Arab role must not be limited to the formation of opinions and the adoption
of positions. Taking action on these issues would not only familiarize Arab
states with what is taking place in the region and its affairs now and what is
expected in the future. It would also impact on the serious possibility before
us, that of a nuclear Iran. Distancing ourselves from these issues may
leave us removed from Arab interests and security
Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri had similar views. For the GCC,
considerations of democracy in Iraq or prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran
are not as pressing as their own security, insofar as they are small city-states
that are consumers and not producers of security. This presents them
with a profound dilemma. In the Iran-US crisis, they are not playing any
active role but are relying on the US and Israel to resolve matters.
Sometimes they blame both the US and Iran for violating regional security
and deplore lack of contacts between them.

336

Feeling assured that Iran has no incentive to use nuclear weapons

against them as its nuclear programme is primarily against the US and Israel,
they are nevertheless nervous of the dire consequences if Iran is placed
under sanctions or attacked. In that case, they feel that Iran would be
forced to accelerate its nuclear programme, turn more bellicose and disrupt
their quietist ethos. Also in case of war, trade and business might suffer as
the Gulf waterway could face closure. Their advice to the US is not to push
Iran towards confrontation, not marginalize them and help rectify the
balance between a strong Iran and a weakened Iraq in the region.
The Arab states face Hobsons choice: close identification with the
US is unpopular due to public sentiment and the Israeli factor, while
prospects of military showdowns are a cause for worry. While you can do
precious little to modify the rigidity and bellicosity of Iran and the US, they
are asking both to exercise restraint and start a dialogue.
In a another article he brought Turkey in the equation, though in a
different context. The revelation that Iran was pursuing a clandestine
nuclear programme led to some rethinking in Turkey. The Turkish
perception is that the US could not prevent North Korea from going nuclear
and its undue emphasis on the war against terrorism has redirected its
energies and threat perceptions. The weakening of the NPT regime and the
US-India nuclear deal have also strengthened the feeling that Turkey should
also start building its infrastructure for nuclear weapons. If Iran evades the
NPT or walks out of it, Ankara will be left with no option but to follow suit.
Atul Aneja explained the extent of involvement of GCC countries in
case of military action against Iran. The existing presence of the Crusaders
in the Gulf region would automatically make the Arab states party to
the invasion for following reasons:
Bahrain hosts the headquarters of the US Navys Fifth Fleet. The
Jufair naval facility there is one of the nerve centres from where the
movement of US warships, including aircraft carriers that roam the
Gulf waters is coordinated.
The al-Udied air base in neighbouring Qatar has the longest runway
in the Gulf; it plays a central role in providing logistics and
surveillance support for operations in the area.
Not too far away, the port of the Fujairah in the UAE acquires special
importance in the execution of American contingency plans. The

337

facilities at this port will come into play in case Iran blocks the Strait
of Hormuz.
In addition, it will be used to offload US supplies. Alternately, goods
could be sent overland to the port of Jebel Ali in Dubai on the
opposite end, for further redistribution.
All the GCC countries are fully aware that a war between Iran and
the US runs counter to their national interests they are likely to be caught
in the crossfire Iran can exercise significant leverage in most of the Gulf
countries. Iranian influence has been deeply entrenched either on account of
the close ties that key power centres in Tehran maintain with the Shia
communities in this zone or because of the close economic ties that it
maintains with some of the GCC countries.
Trita Parsi, however, felt that the crisis was widening the gulf
between US and Sheikhdoms. Today, the Arab monarchies are less than
enthusiastic about putting their security solely in the hands of the United
States. With Chinas dependence on Gulf energy increasing and with the
inevitable rise of Iran, the Arabs are eyeing other alternatives.
Bush Administration feared that a common security arrangement
that included Iran could lessen the Arab states dependence on
Washington, give the leadership in Tehran undue influence and undermine
the justification for Washingtons military presence in the Gulf. Recognizing
that Iraqs defeat in 1991 provided an opportunity for it to mend fences with
Washington and reintegrate itself into the regions political order, Iran
aggressively pushed for a common security system that could end the
perpetual insecurity that put a dark shadow over the energy-rich region.
Washington defined the options facing the GCC to seek a Middle
East order with the US. By offering the GCC states bilateral security deals,
Washington preempted an inclusive Gulf security arrangement Rather
than increasing security through confidence building measures and
intensified and sustained diplomacy, the Arabs armed themselves to the teeth
with Washingtons blessing, to contain what was referred to as the Iranian
threat even though the Arabs vastly outspent Iran on arms.
For instance, the military expenditure of the United Arab Emirates,
an Arab Sheikhdom with a population of just 2.6 million, during 1994-99
was on average more than three times that of Iran, whose population
numbered 65 million

338

The Arab states aggressive arrangement contributed to Irans

insecurity, which in turn increased tensions between the two sides of the
Gulf and undermined the security of the region Under the security
umbrella, the region resembles Europe between the two World Wars it is
fundamentally disordered and riddled with uncertainty, negative competition
and massive instability.
Washingtons invasion of Iraq has fueled anti-US sentiment in the
region and put the Arab regimes security alliance with the US under
intensified domestic criticism Combined with Washingtons criticism of
the lack of democracy in the Arab Kingdoms, the common interests between
the guarantor of Gulf security and the supposed benefactors of this umbrella
are no longer as clear-cut.

IRANIAN STANCE
M Monshipouri and F Sadrieh mentioned some fundamental facts
and realities that are often obfuscated in the current debate. These are;
US has not been target of aggression nor has it been threatened by Iran;
leveling of unsubstantiated allegations about the threat it may represent in
the future; Irans legal right to develop its nuclear program for peaceful
purposes under NPT; and Irans energy requirements growing at 7%
annually.
They regretted that Irans multiple security concerns are ignored.
First, Iran is not a member of any regional security pact. Second, the US
presence in the region has increased Irans sense of urgency for acquiring
some form of strategic deterrence. Finally, the talk of regime change
through military force further alienates Irans leaders.
Ahmedinejads letter had conveyed Iranian viewpoint to Bush
directly. All prophets, Ahmedinejad wrote, referring explicitly to Moses,
Jesus and Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Them), speak of peace and
tranquility for man. Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and
abide by these principles, that are monotheism, worship of God, respect for
the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we could overcome the present
problems of the World? Will you not accept this invitation?
After reproducing the extracts from the letter, Patrick Seale wrote,
little wonder, that the Iranian presidents letter has caused bewilderment,
even alarm, among Bushs advisers and colleagues, more used to talking
the language of force not philosophy.
339

Masooda Bano said, whether or not the US or international

community takes Ahmedinejads letter seriously, the fact is by writing this
letter he has already won. Not only can he now claim to have made a serious
attempt towards establishing a dialogue, but, much more importantly, he has
successfully countered the negative hype around his image created by
Western media.
Dr Moonis Ahmar attempted at identifying the reasons behind Irans
stand on Israel and nuclear issue. Three reasons seem to have inspired Irans
Israel bashing. First, as Ahmedinejad targets Israel, he seeks to divert the
attention of the United States and Israel from Syria and Lebanon. Both
these countries are strong allies of Iran and are under immense pressure from
Washington because of their alleged involvement in terrorism against Israel
and the pro-American regime in Baghdad.
Second, the Iranian leaders are convinced that a nuclear Iran cannot
be blackmailed. Third, the Iranian regime, through its tough positions on
America, Israel and the nuclear issue, has been able to muster enormous
popular support.
Other issues in Iran democracy, corruption and unemployment
which the Khatami regime had tried to resolve, are now in the background.
This diversion of attention has paid rich dividends to those who are at the
helm of affairs in Iran today.
He opined, Ahmedinejads threats have been counterproductive.
He may be hailed as a hero in his country or in a section of the Muslim
World, but beyond that, he will be viewed as a person who is advocating
destruction of a sovereign state which happens to be a member of the UN
and other international organizations. The analyst ignored those who have
actually destroyed two countries which were members of the UN.
Farah Zia opined that Iranian leaders have read the situation correctly.
The only sanctions that could affect them in real sense would be on oil.
They know that the West cannot afford to do that The Iranians also
know that for any sanctions to materialize, the Security Council has to bring
China and Russia round its side, which has not been done so far.
To come to what the Iranians know about the last or the ultimate
threat an attack on their nuclear facilities. The Iranians certainly know
that the Americans might be confused about the consequences of their
well-executed actions that went terribly wrong in the case of Iraq. They
even know that an American Congressional election is round the corner

340

Ewen MacAskill opined that Tehran wants direct talks with

Washington, whereas the US, Britain, France and Germany persuade Iran to
accept the deal. There is a strong secondary motivation: the offer is also
intended to rope in Russia and China to support punitive measures if Tehran
rejects the deal.
The deal the Europeans offered to Iran last year was watered down at
the last minute, after US objections. It is hardly surprising then that the
Iranians want to talk to the organ grinder rather than the monkeys If
the US genuinely wants to go down the diplomatic route, then it has to
accept the Iranian offer of direct talks. It might in the end not do any good.
Irans progress towards a nuclear weapon now appears unstoppable
But Iran might make a calculation that it is worth delaying for a few
years to take the heat out of the crisis and await a new, perhaps more
pliant, administration in Washington. But even a delay is a worthwhile
diplomatic prize, one that might require direct talks.
Arab News wrote, Irans ambassador to the United Nations has said
Tehran wants to work directly with the United States on an easily
attainable resolution, while the countrys former Parliament speaker on
Saturday urged direct talks with the United States to break down the
walls of mistrust. Another top official, International Atomic Energy
Agency chief Mohamed El-Baradei, has mentioned Irans interest in bilateral
talks to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Iran, which has had no diplomatic relations with the US since 1979,
has even turned to Greece as a middleman to convey its messages to the
United States. Washington, however, has been ice cold to the overtures,
which must include President Ahmedinejads recent letter to President Bush
which went unanswered.
Iran and the US do talk, or at least have expressed a willingness to
begin a dialogue focusing on Iraq. US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has
said that he was ready to talk with the Iranians about their relationship with
Baghdad. And Rice went on Arab television the other day to say that
Washington recognizes Irans role in Iraq.
If talk on Iraq is fine, why then is it not so fine to discuss the Nword, an issue of no less importance? Or is the United States happy to
receive help when it comes to Iraq, ready to listen even to a foe, but
unwilling to hear the same party, as soon as the subject changes? The recent
overtures have presented an unprecedented momentum toward possible oneon-one contact between Tehran and Washington.
341

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad expressed Irans viewpoint in his interview to

Der Spiegel of Germany, which raised the issues of Holocaust, future of
Israel and the nuclear row. The issues chosen clearly indicated that the aim
of Der Spiegel was to demonize the Iranian leader, but Nejad put across
Irans view point quite candidly.
In reply to reminding him that denial of the Holocaust is punishable
in Germany, he said, I know that Der Spiegel is a respected magazine. But I
dont know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the
Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?
When Der Spiegel insisted that it was entitled to write about the
findings of the past 60 years, Nejad said, we are posing two very clear
questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer
this question in affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it?
The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is
perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to
find the answer to it in Europe. On the other hand, if the Holocaust didnt
take place, why then did this regime of occupation
Nejad was asked that did he mean Israel; and he replied in affirmative
and added, we are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms
to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is
more research into it and more discussion about it.
That has long since happened in Germany, Der Spiegel insisted. Nejad
clarified, we dont want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every
type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime
actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for
it have to be punished, not the Palestinians? Why research into a deed that
occurred 60 years ago isnt permitted? After all, other historical
occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open
to research, and even the governments support this.
The panel insisted that there is no doubt about the Holocaust and the
Germans are responsible, but refused to link Palestinians with the issue.
Nejad replied, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history.
The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if
the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups
from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to
a certain group? Of course, I dont mean you, but rather the European
governments.

342

Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just a myth, asked the
panel; and Nejad said, I will only accept something as truth if I am actually
convinced of it. In reply to the argument that no Western scholars harbour
any doubt, he replied, there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group
of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust
occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite
position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an
impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion
on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will
contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the
Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and
fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international
and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for
all.
Der Spiegel inquired as to which researchers Nejad meant. You
would know this better than I; you have the list. There are people from
England, from Germany, France and from Austria. The panel presumed and
named some who have been prosecuted and punished for denying the
Holocaust.
Nejad added, the mere fact that my comments have caused such
strong protests, although I am not a European, and also the fact that I have
been compared with certain persons in German history indicates how
charged with conflict the atmosphere for research is in your country.
Here in Iran you need not worry.
Today the Germans are ashamed but they cannot do anything for
deeds of their fathers and grandfathers. Nejad asked; how can a person who
wasnt even alive at the time be held legally responsible? Why is such a
burden heaped on the German people? The German people of today bear no
guilt. Why are the crimes of one group emphasized so greatly, instead of
highlighting the great German cultural heritage? Why should the Germans
not have the right to express their opinion freely?
The panel insisted that it knew the German history and the crimes
committed by Third Reich in the German name. We have owned these,
which is a great achievement. Are you also prepared to tell that to the
German people, asked Nejad. We do that, was the reply. Then would you
also permit an impartial group to ask the German people whether it shares
your opinion? No people accept its humiliation.

343

The panel accepted that there are right-wing Germans who are antiSemitic, but xenophobic and we consider them a threat. Let me ask you one
thing: how much longer do you think the German people have to accept
being taken hostage by the Zionists? When will that end in 20, 50, 1,000
years?
The panel was clearly irritated, but boasted of being critical and
independent; and stood by the protest against questioning the existential
right of the State of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors live. Precisely
that is our point. Why should you feel obliged to the Zionists? If there really
had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe, not in Palestine.
Der Spiegel argued that it amounted to resettling a whole people 60
years after the end of the war. Five million Palestinians have not had a
home for 60 years. It is amazing really: You have been paying reparations
for the Holocaust for 60 years and will have to keep paying up for another
100 years. Why then is the fate of the Palestinians no issue here?
The panel claimed that the West was helping to bring peace in the
region and asked, dont you share that responsibility? Yes, but aggression,
occupation and a repetition of the Holocaust wont bring peace. What we
want is a sustainable peace. This means that we have to tackle the root of the
problem. I am pleased to note that you are honest people and admit that you
are obliged to support the Zionists. That is not what we said. Nejad replied
that you did mention Israelis.
Der Spiegel rubbed the issue to convey to its readers that Nejad
vehemently denied Holocaust. This exercise was aimed at demonizing the
Iranian leader. The panel then came to the nuclear issue and the West seeing
it as threat. Some groups in the West enjoy calling things or people a
threat. Of course youre free to make your own judgment, replied Nejad.
The key question is that do you want nuclear weapons for your
country, asked the panel bluntly. Allow me to encourage a discussion on the
following question: How long do you think the world can be governed by
the rhetoric of a handful of Western powers? Whenever they hold
something against someone, they start spreading propaganda and lies,
defamation and blackmail. How much longer can that go on?
The panel argued that Irans neighbouring country feared that Iran was
very keen to build the bomb. Is it true? Nejad gave an indirect reply, while
insisting that under NPT Iran, like any other country, has the legal right to
acquire nuclear technology. Iran has had an excellent cooperation with
IAEA. We have had more than 2,000 inspections of our plants, and the
344

inspectors have obtained more than 1,000 pages of documentation from us.
Their cameras are installed in our nuclear centres. IAEA has emphasized in
all its reports that there are no indications of any irregularities in Iran. The
panel said IAEA doesnt quite share your view of this matter.
While replying to the key question, Nejad repeated his previous
assertions. In our view, the legal system whereby a handful of countries
force their will on the rest of the world is discriminatory and unstable. He
added that countries possessing nuclear weapons use their atomic
weapons to threaten other peoples. And it is these powers who say that
they are worried about Iran deviating from the path of peaceful use of atomic
energy.
What these powers say is that the Iranians must not complete the
nuclear fuel cycle because deviation from peaceful use might then be
possible. What we say is that these countries themselves have long deviated
from peaceful usage. These powers have no right to talk to us in this manner.
This order is unjust and unsustainable.
The panel pointed out that the world would become very dangerous if
Iran and other countries build bombs in a crisis-ridden region. We are
fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nuclear weapons arsenals.
This is why we have proposed the formation of an unbiased organization and
the disarmament of the nuclear powers. We dont need any weapons. Were
civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we have never attacked
another country.
The panel became sarcastic by saying that Iran doesnt need the bomb
that it wants to build. I stress once again, we dont need any nuclear
weapons. We stand by our statements because were honest and act
legally. Were no fraudsters. We only want to claim our legitimate right.
Incidently, I never threatened any one that, too, is part of the propaganda
machine that you have got running against me. Would you like to assure
that no one should fear that Iran would use nuclear weapons, the panel
asked. Allow me to say two things. No people in the region are afraid of us.
And no one should instill fear in these peoples.
We believe that if the United States and these two or three European
countries did not interfere, the peoples in this region would live
peacefully together as they did in thousands of years before. In 1980, it was
also the nations of Europe and the United States that encouraged Saddam
Hussein to attack us.

345

After the announcement that the US was willing for direct talks with
Iran, Jackson Diehl wrote, most Iranians Ive spoken to, fervently desire
from the United States: not the tactical talks offered last week by Secretary
of state Condoleezza Rice but strategic recognition of Iran as a great
civilization and a regional power that must be treated, like China as a stakeholder in global affairs.

THE OUTCOME
There was nothing new to add to the list of effects created by the
ongoing crisis, except the US willingness to direct negotiations with Iran.
But before discussing the prospects of talks, some comments on one of the
outcomes already identified in Part-I, which Putin denied by saying, no
return to Cold War with the West.
The Guardian rejected the possibility of revival of Cold war. Much of
what Mr Putin said was about domestic issues, calling for investment to
boost growth and measures to reverse a declining birth rate. But it was his
dismissive riposte to the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, which attracted
most attention.
Nostalgics apart, no one believes that Russia has any real claim to
be the global titan it once was, though it is still a nuclear-armed, vetowielding member of the UN Security Council and thus a key player on
issues like Iran. But its oil and gas reserves have given it a clout it could
only dream of in the dying days of the Soviet Union, as Mr Putin recognizes
with his use of the term energy superpower.
The Putin-Cheney exchanges hardly constitute a new cold war, as
some claim, though there is a distinct nip in the summer air. It seems
certain to be felt at the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July, when Mr Putin is
hoping for progress on Russias bid to join the World Trade Organization
For whats going on these days is now fairly clear and fairly alarming.
Nicolas K Gvosdev opined that the impression of revival of Cold War
has been created by the public opinion in Russia which is critical of
Americas unilateralism. Opinion polls suggest that more than 60 percent
of Russians see the United States as having a negative influence in the
world; more than half believe that the United States is unfriendly to Russia.
And although many Americans comfort themselves with the illusion that
these figures must be weighted in favour of the elderly with Cold War hangups, the reality is that it is the young, college-educated elites in Moscow and

346

St Petersburg Russias wealthiest and most liberal cities who are the
bastion of anti-US sentiment in the country.
Survey data indicate that by a 2-to-1 margin, Russians believe the
economic benefits of selling arms to Iran outweigh preserving good relations
with the United States. More than 60 percent do not share the view that Iran
endangers the security of Russia, and more than 80 percent agree with the
proposition that Iran has drawn American ire not because of Tehran poses a
general threat to global peace and security but because Iran frustrates
American ambitions for the region.
In fact, it is difficult to conceive of any Putin foreign-policy decision
of the last several years that would have been reversed by a more
democratically accountable Russian government. Eighty-nine percent of
the people, for example, oppose any participation of Russian forces in
any American-led coalition in Iraq.
Ayman el-Amir attributed this strong anti-US public opinion to
Americas so-called war on terror in general and occupation of Iraq in
particular. Russia has been groping its way back to global power since it
recovered from the 1998 financial crisis in which it defaulted on its foreign
debt obligations and tipped international markets into a downward spin.
It was not until the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the US and UK that
Russian strategic interests in the Middle East were seriously threatened.
Not only was the former Soviet Union fragmented and many of its republics
lured into Western political and economic institutions, but the warm waters
of the Mediterranean became forbidding, and former allies along its
coastline and beyond estranged.
The US became the dominant power in the Middle East, with
unprecedented hegemony over politics, oil resources, intelligence, and
military facilities. But while the invasion of Iraq and its consequences
excluded a Russian role, the dispute over Irans nuclear activities did
not. Historical relations and strategic interests between the two neighbouring
countries, including Russias commitment to building two nuclear reactors in
Iran, give it a central role in the running dispute.
As a key player in the Middle East problem, sidelined by the US after
the Camp David agreements, Russia has won accolades within the Hamasled Palestinian government when it offered $ 10 million in emergency
assistance just as the US and its Western allies were trying to strangle it. As a
member of the Middle East Quartet Russia is playing moderating role to
counterbalance the unqualified support the US lends Israel.
347

In rebuilding its position in the international arena Russia will no

longer rely on the discredited ideological affinities that were the hallmark
of the former Soviet Union. The 21st century world is built on shifting
loyalties and loose alliances and, above all, economic interests.
With its new-found confidence and wealth Russia is re-emerging on
the international political scene as a re-energized power that can make a
difference. And its new role is being reinforced by an unlikely ally,
strengthened by the debacle-strewn policies of the Bush Administration.
The Cod War scenario has been projected for pressuring Russia. For
example, four former Soviet states, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and
Moldova were reported joining hands to seek to plot a path independent of
Moscows control with key objective of joining EU and NATO.
Daniel Schorr could not see any wisdom in such hype. It is hard to
figure out why the Bush Administration is starting this new little cold
war with Russia. Russia must be prevailed upon not to veto United Nations
sanctions on Iran if there is to be any hope of getting a strong resolution.
Russia is also an asset in the fight against terrorism (Islamic militancy).
Russias huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is never very far from American
strategic thinking.
A recent report of a bipartisan task force assembled by the Council on
Foreign Relations said Putin is presiding over a rollback of Russian
democracy, what it called a defacto revival of the group of seven that is,
a separate meeting without Russia That idea is not likely to sit well with
the Russian hosts in St Petersburg. One way or another, relations with
Russia seem headed for trouble.
There were others, like Mark John, who indulged in the hype keeping
the energy resources at the foremost. Western concern over Russias
control of energy supplies has emerged as a new complicating factor in
relations. The gas pricing dispute between Russia and Ukraine this year led
to disruption of supplies to Europe and heated exchanges at least one closeddoor NATO-Russia session, diplomats say.
The allies wanted to raise the matter because they saw a problem of
heavy-handed tactics by the Russians, said one participant at a ministerial
session last month. Against such backdrop, it is little wonder the results of
NATO-Russia cooperation efforts have been moderate so far There is no
consensus within NATO yet on how to deal with a new assertive Russia,
said Dana Allin of the London-based IISS.

348

Govind Talwalkar opined, most of the criticism leveled against

Putin can be leveled against the Bush Administration as well.
Theoretically, in the US, the media is free; but since big corporations own it,
the heads of which are ardent Republicans and some very conservative, it is
almost embedded in the administration, and has lost credibility. This of
course does not justify Putins high-handed tactics, but Cheney and Rice and
for that matter Bush have no moral authority to throw stones at the Russian
President.
Since the US is using its leverage to dominate the World Bank, IMF,
WTO and all such organizations, and defy all international laws, it should
not lecture any head of state against using natural resources as weapon.
The US too is more than guilty of rousing nationalist feelings at home, in
that; much is made of the military.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi was of the view that differences on Iran were
misinterpreted, because Beijing and Moscow carefully crafting every step
according to the ebbs and flows of a fluid crisis that features multiple
players with distinct, shared, parallel and opposing interests.
Instead of exploring the perfectly viable options of full-scale
international monitoring of Irans limited, contained enrichment programme,
Russian and Chinese policy-makers are slowly but surely adjusting
themselves to precisely such a scenario, whose net effect would be
detrimental to their own geopolitical vested interests, particularly if war
breaks out.
Americas willingness for the dialogue with Iran was a significant
development. A sincere approach aimed at peaceful resolution of the dispute
was widely suggested. On 26th May, the News wrote, there is one welcome
development of this issue, however, and this is a report which says that some
countries are intensifying contacts to try to prevent the situation from
escalating by offering Tehran some kind of package on incentives and
concessions in return for promises that it will not develop nuclear weapons.
One hopes that George W Bush and the neocons that run the government
will come around to this idea and give dialogue a chance.
Manik Mehta wrote that Malaysia was mediating on nuclear row with
Iran. Badawi urged the Iranian leader to seek a diplomatic solution to
the standoff with the West over Irans nuclear programme. This, to avert a
military conflictMalaysia also nudged Ahmedinejad to coordinate with
Russia, which has been assigned the role of a mediator by the US.

349

Malaysia has, apparently, been encouraged by the US to persuade

Iran to avoid the stand-off with the West and seek a peaceful solution by
renouncing its nuclear programme US experts privately say, Malaysia
under Badawi could help, to use a phrase in vogue, build bridges for the
US with the Muslim World.
Steven R Weisman was not optimistic about prospects of dialogue and
bargaining. Those who know her well say she is resisting on the ground that
signaling a willingness to talk would show weakness and disrupt the
delicate negotiations with Europe. Ms Rice is also said to fear that the
administration might end up making too many concessions to Iran.
Administration officials said President Bush, Vice President Dick
Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld have opposed direct
talks, even through informal back channels. As a result, many European
officials say they doubt that a decision to talk is likely soon One reason
senior administration officials do not like the idea of talking with Iran,
many of them say, is that they are not certain Iranian leaders would
respond positively. A rebuff from Iran, even to a back-channel query, is to
be avoided at all costs, various officials agree.
Joschka Fischer advocated bargaining despite Irans rigid stance on
the issue. At the heart of the issue lies the Iranian regimes aspiration to
become a hegemonic Islamic and regional power and thereby position itself
at eye level with the worlds most powerful nations. It is precisely this
ambition that sets Iran apart from North Korea: Whereas North Korea seeks
nuclear weapons capability to entrench its own isolation, Iran is aiming for
regional dominance and more.
Iran is betting on revolutionary changes within the power structure of
the Middle East to help it achieve its strategic goal. To this end, it makes use
of Israel and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as Lebanon, Syria, its
influence in the Persian Gulf region and, above all, Iraq. This combination of
hegemonic aspirations, questioning of the regional status quo and a
nuclear program is extremely dangerous.
Irans acquisition of a nuclear bomb or even its ability to produce
one would be interpreted by Israel as a fundamental threat to its existence,
thereby compelling the West, and Europe in particular, to take sides. Europe
has not only historical moral obligations to Israel but also security interests
that link it to the strategically vital Eastern Mediterranean.
The Iranian regimes analysis may prove to be a dangerous
miscalculation, because it is likely to lead sooner rather than later to a hot
350

confrontation that Iran simply cannot win. After all, the issue at the heart of
this conflict is this: Who dominates the Middle East Iran or the United
States? Irans leaders underestimate the explosive nature of this issue for
the United States as a global power and thus for its own future.
So what should be done? There remains a serious chance for a
diplomatic solution if the United States, in cooperation with the Europeans
and with the support of the UN Security Council and the non-aligned states
of the Group of 77, offers Iran a grand bargain. In exchange for long-term
suspension of uranium enrichment, Iran and other states would gain access
to research and technology within an internationally defined framework and
under comprehensive supervision by the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
The New York Times wrote, if things keep going as they are going
now, Iran is likely to have nuclear weapons sometime during the next
decade. Yet none of the strategies now being discussed internationally
seem likely to get Iran to change course. The incentives that Europe can
offer on its own appear too limited to tempt Iran into giving up its nuclear
plans. The mild sanctions that seem to be the most Russia and China are
willing to consider at this point are too painless to make much of an
impression. And the few military options realistically available are likely to
do more harm than good.
This bleak outlook for addressing a problem that is far too serious to
be ignored argues for exploring a radically different approach: direct
talks between Washington and Tehran in which Iran would be offered a
wide-ranging package of economic inducements and security assurances in
exchange for completely and verifiably abandoning all programs capable of
producing nuclear bomb fuel. Some Iranian officials are now seeking such
talks, yet Washington, perversely, seems uninterested.
The Bush Administrations resistance to direct talks could prove
very costly to Americas long-term interests. With Irans uranium
enrichment programs moving forward, time is not on Washingtons side.
Direct talks with Iran may fail to produce an acceptable agreement. But by
testing Irans willingness to bargain seriously, America could put itself in a
far stronger diplomatic position to seek more effective international
sanctions later Unless the Bush Administration eases its stubborn
opposition to direct talks, it is hard to see what is going to stop the eventual
emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran.

351

After the announcement of Americas willingness to join talks, the

Washington Post called it a smart approach. It wrote, the concession was
merely to acknowledge the reality that any enduring settlement of the Iranian
nuclear threat will require direct US participation. Yet the administration
rightly insisted that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment and
reprocessing before any talks including the United States begin, and it linked
its offer to a carrot-and-stick package of incentives and sanctions that would
be presented to Iran in the coming days with the support of the Europeans
and, possibly, China and Russia.
The packaging means that Iran wont achieve the symbolic
breakthrough of talks with the United States something its regime and
public deeply desire unless it suspends its nuclear work. If Iran rejects the
offer, which will also include economic incentives, the result should be the
passage of a Security Council resolution opening the way to sanctions.
Crucially, European governments, and possibly Russia and China, will agree
on the sanctions to be imposed even before the offer is made.
That doesnt mean the Bush Administration is anywhere near ending
the threat from Iran. Most likely, the regime will try to dodge the choice it
will be presented or reject it altogether. It will look for support to actors
such as Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, who has publicly undercut the decisions of his own board and the
Security Council by proposing that Iran be allowed to continue uranium
processing.
The News wrote, the proposal of direct talks with Iran can be
described as a major shift in policy because for the first time since the
Islamic revolution Washington has expressed a willingness to directly talk to
Tehran. But the strictly conditional nature of the offer announced by
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday that Iran must first halt
enriching uranium casts some doubt of Americas intentions. The decision
is an about-turn also in the sense that it shows that perhaps the neocons in
the Bush Administration who have been all along pressing for no
engagement with Tehran may have lost on this issue to the relatively more
moderate state department.
Glenn Kessler wrote, for six years, President Bush and his aides
have dismissed the idea of talking with Iran about its nuclear
programmes, and until last year gave little support to European efforts to
restrain Iranian nuclear activity. Attempts by former Iranian president

352

Mohammad Khatami, a moderate, to foster a dialogue were rejected and

even back-channel moves failed to gain traction.
The administration made this move at a moment of weakness. The
presidents public opinion ratings are among the lowest ever recorded for a
modern president, and oil prices have reached record levels, in part because
of the confrontation with Iran. The high price of oil, in turn, has enriched the
Iranian treasury.
A key factor in Bushs decision is the influence of Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, who announced the offer in a televised news conference.
Since becoming secretary of state last year, Rice has worked assiduously to
make certain that the United States does not manoeuvre itself into
becoming the worlds enemy No 1, as it did on the Iraq War.
Once Bush received assurances earlier this week from leaders of
China, Russia and other nations that if this offer were rejected they would
accept a harder line against Iran, US officials decided to go forward with the
plan. Rice said Wednesday that she advocated this decision in part
because of echoes of the concerns that she heard on her first trip that
the United States was not serious about resolving this issue with diplomacy.
Conservatives in the administration have chafed at the shift,
suggesting it shows weakness on the part of the United States because Iran
apparently has been able to make significant progress in nuclear energy
with little apparent consequences.
Rice made this new move just as it appeared the European effort
was on the verge of collapsing through division and lack of leadership. The
Germans, eager to strike a deal with Iran, have been the most adamant that
the United States needed to join the talks.
Helene Cooper and David E Sanger described details of the decision
making. Rice sat down to a small lunch in President Bushs private dining
room and delivered grim news to her Boss: Their Coalition against Iran
was at risk of falling apart it broached the idea that the United States
end its nearly three-decade policy against direct talks with Iran.
He (Bush) made the final decision only after telephone calls with
President Vladimir V Putin of Russia and the Chancellor Angela Merkel of
Germany led him to conclude that if Tehran refused to suspend its
enrichment of uranium, or later dragged its feet, they would support an
escalating series of sanctions against Iran at the United Nations and could
lead to confrontation.

353

Dick Cheney, long an opponent of proposals to engage Iran,

agreed to this experiment. But it is unclear whether he is an enthusiast, or
simply expects Iran to reject suspending enrichment clearing the way to
sanctions that could test the Iranian governments ability to survive.
Simon Tisdall termed it an internal victory for Rice. Her approach
increasingly brought her into conflict with the vice-president, Dick Cheney
the dark lord of right wing Republicanism; and Donald Rumsfeld, the
Pentagon tsar whose political infighting skills repeatedly undermined Mr
Powell. But both men have lost ground in recent months, largely because of
Iraq. They are believed to have opposed an opening to Iran as a
concession to terrorism and blackmail.
The US shift puts the ball squarely back in Irans court If, after
serious consideration, Iran formally rejects the offer and the accompanying
carrots-and-sticks package to be finalized in Vienna today, the US will be
able to say that it has tried its best And western nations, plus Russia and
China, will almost certainly agree. They will be much more likely to unite
behind Washington in seeking coercive UN Security Council action against
Tehran. Ms Rice will have achieved her coalition of the willing If Iran
accepts, then long and difficult negotiations will lie ahead with no guarantee
of success. But a third war in the Middle East in almost as many years may
have been avoided, at least for now
Daily Telegraph said, it will be nave to think that the deep mistrust
between America and Iran, which dates from the hostage crisis of 1979-81,
has suddenly evaporated. Rather than opening secret negotiations,
Washington has decided to make very public offer of talks and thus put the
other side on the spot. This is sensible tactical ploy and marks the end of
that strange period when Washington subcontracted to allies the conduct of
talks on a matter of vital concern.
The New York Times foresaw that the next few days and weeks would
be delicate. Iran makes much of its right, under international law, to enrich
uranium for power plants. But it is much less eager to talk about its
unambiguous obligation, under the same treaty, not to abuse that right for
purposes of building nuclear weapons. Its current enrichment programs
threatened to cross that critical line. Tehran would not be giving up any
rights by suspending enrichment-related activities. It has already done
twice before. Many other countries with exactly the same legal right to
enrichment and reprocessing have wisely chosen not to engage in those
problematic activities.

354

Patrick Seale asked what if Iran rejects the package. The six powers
will be at odds over what to do next. Unlike the US and its European
allies, China and Russia are firmly opposed to any talk of sanctions at this
stage, arguing that this is a matter for the UN Security Council alone to
decide.
The US seems to have put a damper on its earlier bellicose discourse.
US officials no longer refer to Iran as a rogue state or as the central banker
of terrorism. This is a small but important sign of greater realism in
Washington.
American hardliners represented by pro-Israeli neocons as well as by
such a powerful figure as Vice President Dick Cheney are by no means
convinced of the usefulness of talks with Tehran. They want to isolate and
overthrow the Iranian regime, not to embrace it.
They argue that if Iran were allowed to continue nuclear activity,
even only on laboratory scale, it must eventually acquire the knowledge to
build nuclear weapons and would therefore challenge American and Israeli
hegemony in the region.
Iranian hardliners and they include Ahmedinejad himself fear
that if a dialogue with Washington resulted in a thaw in relations, it could
open the suppressed floodgates of pro-American sentiment in Iran that might
eventually sweep the whole theocratic regime from power.
Some observers of Washington politics believe the offer was
designed to fail, so as to demonstrate Irans intransigence and therefore
open the way for harsh international pressures. Perhaps the real obstacle to
talks is Americas insistence on limiting them to Irans nuclear ambitions.
Hamid Ansari saw no reason for optimism. He said that the design of
the grand bargain has to be viewed in the context of background in
which the United States (a) refused in principle to engage with Iran; (b) tried
to impose conditions through EU3 and in the process moved goal posts; (c)
sought to re-write the NPT and move its own red line: from a denial to Iran
of nuclear weaponry to a denial, first, of enrichment and then, of research
and knowledge itself.
Hillel Fradkin visualized the same, but he opined that it would be
because of Iran. Once a formal offer is made, will Iran agree to our
condition and enter direct talks? Not likely. First, Iran isnt tempted by the
carrots Nor is it frightened by the sticks But the most important
reason is the great value Iran, and in particular Ahmedinejad, sees in the

355

pursuit of nuclear enrichment and weaponry. He has referred to it as a

golden treasure. And he is right, from the perspective of his ambitions,
which are increasingly those of the regime as a whole.

CONCLUSIONS
The preceding confirms the conclusions drawn in Part I. The
Crusaders are demonizing Irans quest for peaceful nuclear technology
driven by anti-Muslim sentiment. It may be noted that North Korea is
reported to be far ahead of Iran in its programme to possess nuclear
weapons, yet America has avoided confrontation with blatant proliferators.
The logic behind the double standard on nuclear proliferation is that
North Korea, with or without nuclear weapons, poses no threat to Israel, but
Iran, again with or without the forbidden weapons, is taken as serious threat.
Therefore, it can be inferred that anti-Iran sentiment is being fanned by
lobbies working for the Jewish cause.
It is premature to draw any conclusion about revival of Cold War. No
big power is inclined to indulge in such a wasteful confrontation. However,
Russia and China, encouraged by the prevalent anti-West feeling all over the
world, seem willing to oppose Americas unilateralism and hegemonic
designs.
The US willingness to hold talks with Iran is a significant
development which took place during the period. This has come as the result
of realization that America may be capable of biting, chewing and even
swallowing big chunks, but not necessarily digesting those, which is all
important.
It is not aimed at any compromise on the issue. Bush has agreed to
direct talks with the intent to ensure dialogues failure and then blaming Iran
for that. To this end he has laid down such demands which make the very
purpose of dialogue redundant.
In other words, it is not the change of heart or altering of the goals. It
is modification of the strategy to first impose UN approved sanctions and
then prepare grounds for military action/regime change. The revision of
strategy was necessitated by the prevalent situation which is not conducive
for opening another militarily active front.
Nevertheless, the Crusaders, by increasing tension with Iran, have
succeeded in diverting world attention away from Iraq, Afghanistan and

356

Palestine. It has also convinced the rulers of the Arab World that their
security rests in aligning their interests with those of the US.
The argument of Gulf News and many others which says that Israels
nuclear arsenal be preferably abolished, but Irans intention of possessing
nuclear bombs puts undue stress on the region, spoke of the disunity of
Muslim World. The disunity, at times leading to hostility towards each other,
makes the task of the Crusaders easier.

10th June 2006

MONSTER TURNED GHOST

On 8th June, Maliki flanked by Khalilzad and US General George
Casey announced that Zarqawi, along with seven aides, including his
spiritual leader Sheikh Abdul Rahman, was killed in precision bombing of a

357

remote location in Diyala province near its capital, Baqouba. The occupation
forces wasted no time in nominating his successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
It was reported that information collected by Jordan during
interrogation of al-Qaeda suspects and provided to US forces along with
video tapes of the deceased helped in pin-pointing the location of the
monster. Next day, curfew was clamped in Baghdad and Baqouba as
preventive measure against retaliatory attacks by the insurgents.
We tell our prince, Sheikh bin Laden, your soldiers in al-Qaeda in
Iraq will continue along the same path that you set out for Abu Musab alZarqawi, said a statement on an Islamist Website. The death of our leaders
is life for us and only makes us more determined to continue the jihad In
the town of Zarqa, Zarqawis relatives mourned his death as a loss to Islam
and prayed for 1,000 Zarqawis to fight the Americans in his place.
On 9th June, al-Qaeda threatened to avenge Zarqawis killing.
Websites devoted to al-Qaeda and other jihadist causes were flooded with
messages of support for the organization and pledges to continue the fight.
World media saw no end to war.
I want to assure the Muslims across the world that we will not stop
our struggle against crusaders in Afghanistan, said Mulla Omar, nobody
knew Zarqawi three years back, but his struggle against US invaders made
him an important leader of the resistance movement.
US General denied that Zarqawi was beaten to death by US soldiers.
He died while American soldiers were attempting to save his life. Next day,
the result of DNA test was reported as positive. Within four days after
Zarqawis death, Bush gained two points in approval ratings.
Al-Qaeda announced through Internet that Abu Hamza al-Muhajir will
succeed Zarqawi. The decision was made by the Shura Council of the
Mujahideen, a coalition of six Sunni insurgency groups. Muhajir was among
the circle of people who knew Zarqawi well and who had worked with him
closely since 2001. He is of the same age as Zarqawi.
His nationality was not established. He worked with bin Laden and
lived with him in Sudan until 1995. After that, he moved to Peshawar and
then to Afghanistan, before settling in Iraq with Zarqawi in 2001. Since
2003, he has been in charge of recruiting young Arabs into al-Qaeda and
served as chief of al-Qaeda intelligence in the Middle East and North Africa.
Muhajir has no picture or identity. He is like a ghost.

358

MURDER HAILED
Loud applause broke out as al-Maliki told a news conference in
Baghdad that al-Zarqawi was eliminated. America, Britain and Australia
hailed the killing. Bush claimed that it is a severe blow to al-Qaeda and it is
a significant victory in the war on terror. But, he added, we have tough
days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continuing patience of the
American people.
During the press briefing, Zalmay Khalilzad could not control his
feeling of elation over significant victory He termed it as good omen. The
death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi marks a great success for Iraq and the
global war on terror.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Bahram Saleh said, Zarqawi represents
the evil of terrorism and he has been responsible for death and mayhem
against the people of Iraq. Having him killed, we have achieved an
important victory.
Maj General Rashid Fulyah, head of Iraqi commandos said: He is an
evil man responsible for killing many Iraqis and this will end the doubt in
Iraqi peoples minds that the Americans knew where Zarqawi was, but
didnt stop him. Iraqi police in Sadr City celebrated the killing by firing in
the air. Pakistans Foreign Office spokesperson termed it a significant
development and said, we are also watching the developments
The Washington Post wrote that Zarqawis killing is a big gain for the
US mission in Iraq and the countys new government, the more so because it
comes at a critical moment. With one airs tike, US forces deprived Iraqs
insurgency diverse and fragmented though it is of its sole widely
recognized leader, probably its biggest fundraiser and recruiter, and the
organizer of some of the most spectacular and demoralizing attacks
Los Angeles Times said, there can be little argument that the death of
Zarqawi, who was killed when an Air Force jet dropped two bombs on his
house about 30 miles north of Baghdad, is the best military news from
Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein 2 years ago. And Iraqs
leaders are now in a better position to capitalize on the development than
they were in December 2003.
It added, from a practical standpoint, Zarqawis killing removes the
insurgencys most renowned leader. By all accounts, the head of al-Qaeda in
Iraq was an effective terrorist The New York Times wrote, it is good
news for Washington, and even better news for Iraq, that the Jordanian
359

terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was finally killed on Wednesday by an

American air strike.
Analysts from the civilized world joined the media in celebrating the
death. Paul Wilkinson, professor of International Relations said: It is a very
important breakthrough for the Iraqi experiment in setting up a democratic
government and an important breakthrough in the war against al-Qaeda
terrorism.
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon opined that with the killing of
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi outside Baghdad, the United States has struck its
most important blow in the war on terrorism since driving al-Qaeda out of
Afghanistan. Easily the deadliest terrorist at work over the last three years,
Mr Zarqawi was probably responsible for more deaths than Osama bin
Laden and leaves behind a jihadist movement that has been drastically
changed in no small part by his actions.
Patrick Cockburn said, his death is important in Iraq because he
was the most openly sectarian of the Sunni resistance leaders, butchering
Shia as heretics deemed as worthy of death as any foreign invader. He also
said that he was little known petty criminal turned Islamic fundamentalist
fanatic.
David W Brannan observed that the News of Zarqawis death has
been greeted with euphoria. The announcement this time made by Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, has elicited much the same kind of elation that
the capture of Hussein did Zarqawis death is a reason for a joy. And the
successful strike on Zarqawi shows that the United States military is not
incompetent and outmatched, as our enemies would have Iraqis believe.
Some analysts welcomed the news with reservations. Andrew J
Bacevich wrote, although future historians may well see June 2006 as a
turning point in the global war on terror, it will not be because US forces
finally succeeded in getting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
According to him they will see June 2006 as the month when the
Bush Administration sobered up when it finally recognized that the
course on which it had embarked after 9/11 wasnt working and had become
unsustainable. To make this case, they will cite the following points: First, in
June 2006 the United States all but abandoned its tough-guy approach on
Iran. Second, by this June the resurgence of the Taliban had become
unmistakable. Third, in June the US effort to keep Somalia out of the hands
of the Islamists collapsed.

360

Robert Fisk did not find any reason for rejoicing. What a sigh of
relief there must have been in Washington that Zarqawi was dead and not
captured, He might have told the truth. Why? This shall be seen little
later.
He added, that the intelligence services of King Abdullah of Jordan
descendant of the monarch whom Sir Winston Churchill plopped off to the
Hashmite throne might have located Zarqawis safe house in Baqouba
was a suitably ironical act. The man who believed in caliphates had struck
at the kingdom killing 60 innocents in three hotels and the old colonial
world had struck back.
Lawrence Wright looked at it from a different angle. Those quietly
celebrating the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi last week, no doubt, were
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Qaeda, who
have watched their nominal ally wreck the standing of their organization
among Muslims around the world.
Arab World also expressed it feelings. Gulf News wrote, it was a
great day for Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. The man responsible for
the death of thousands of Iraqis and who almost single handedly sparked a
civil war was killed on Wednesday. On the same day of this announcement,
Prime Minister Nouri al-Malikis government managed to overcome
sectarian differences to fill the vacant important security posts the ministers
of defence, interior and national security.
Sami Moubayed was not inclined to call it as success of the
Crusaders. While the US is basking in Zarqawis death, as is the United
Kingdom, it should not be forgotten that they were not the only ones after
his blood. He added, Jordanian intelligence wanted him. So did Maliki, the
Iraqi Kurds and the Mehdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, the rebel Shiite cleric.
So did the Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution
in Iraq (SCIRI), a leading Shiite organization. So did Iran. So did Saudi
Arabia. So did the average Iraqi citizen.
In Pakistan, the Speaker of National Assembly forbade offering
Fateh for Zarqawi. But, tens of thousands of people attended the ghaibana
funeral prayers in Lahore led by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed of Jamatud
Daawa. He said forces fighting against US occupation of Iraq would unite
more than before and continue fighting till the ouster of Americans from
their land.
Kamran Shafi preferred to take on Khalilzad to express the popular
sentiment. As the Associated Press put it, the US Ambassador to Iraq
361

clapping like a school-boy who has just won the balance-the-egg-on-thespoon race and beaming from ear to ear while standing next to Iraqs new
prime minister.

ROLE IN RESISTANCE
The western media in unison shifted the entire blame on Zarqawi
for Shia-Sunni bloodletting. The Washington Post wrote, although al-Qaeda
in Iraq makes up only a part of the Iraqi insurgent, it has been the
organization most intent on fomenting sectarian war between Sunnis and
Shiites; the elimination of its leader will surely contribute to stanching the
civil conflict.
The Star said, in what now appears to be his last audiotape, he
unleashed a torrent of slurs against Shiites, hopefully revealing to a great
many Iraqi Sunnis that his real purpose was not their welfare but rather their
cousins subjugation and extermination.
The analysts from the West, generally, had the same view. Jonathan
Steele termed him as self-styled leader of the al-Qaeda in Iraq. Though
attracted to Iraq by the magnet of the occupation, he was seen the architect
of a terror campaign that had nothing to do with the real insurgency. It
was designed to provoke chaos and civil war. An extreme Sunni
fundamentalist who believed Shias were not true Muslims, he and his group
had increasingly turned to attacks on Shia targets.
For months there were signs that his vicious carnage was alienating
many Iraqi Sunni leaders. As a result, Zarqawi was forced to agree not to
disrupt last Decembers election for a new Iraqi government since Sunnis
wanted to take part.
His ultra-radicalism earned him rebukes from within al-Qaeda
itself. Ayman al-Zawahiri, its deputy leader, wrote him a letter last summer
warning of the risk of losing popular support, questioning the wisdom of
attacks on ordinary Shias, and denouncing the videos of hostagebeheadings.
Zarqawi was reminded that the Taliban failed to broaden political
base and fell largely for that reason. He was also told to remember that
resistance in Iraq cannot be led by non-Iraqis and that he should therefore
defer to local feeling a reflection of the need to understand national pride
that applies more strongly to the Americans and the British.

362

Zarqawi and other foreign jihadis were always minority within the
resistance. Outsiders have never exceeded 10 per cent of the numbers of
fighters and suspected insurgents killed or detained by the occupation and
Iraqi forces. Clearly, Zarqawi had Iraqi allies, and had an influence on
inciting suicide bombings.
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon wrote, in Iraq, his efforts to set
off sectarian conflict have succeeded with a barbaric efficiency. Although
his band of foreign fighters represented a small percentage of the insurgents
in Iraq, the truth is that their violence drove the insurgency especially
the large-scale attacks like that on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in
February.
Indeed, Mr Zarqawis violence was so vicious and indiscriminate
killing so many Muslims it created what some experts call the Zarqawi
effect: a Muslim repugnance at the jihadist movement that has probably
turned more of his co-religionists away from radicalism than Americas
democratization campaign.
David W Brannan was of the view that Zarqawi was credited with
recruiting fighters from Jordan and Palestinian territories and other lands,
previously unconcerned with Iraq(but) Zarqawi was both a leader of
and a problem for al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Al-Qaedas international leadership Egyptian-born Ayman Zawahiri
and Saudi native Osama bin Laden wanted to rein in Zarqawis vicious and
savage attacks, including the videotaped beheadings of some of his victims.
Zarqawi was truly terrorizing but even the al-Qaeda leadership felt his
brutality against fellow Muslims was counterproductive to their greater
goal of defeating the West.
In addition, the horrific nature of Zarqawis snuff file made it more
difficult for his foreign jihadists to maintain a working relationship with
other Sunni insurgents led by former Hussein supporters and Sunni tribal
leaders in al-Anbar province
This antipathy by the Sunni leadership toward Zarqawi forced the
Jordanian to leave al-Anbar and relocate to Diyala province, north of
Baghdad, where he was killed Wednesday. This hostility also might explain
why the US received a tip from Iraqis about Zarqawis whereabouts.
Patrick Cockburn observed, his chosen instrument was the suicide
bomber, usually recruited from outside the country. Their targets were
almost invariably Shia young men desperate to work, lining up for jobs as

363

policemen or soldiers. Very few of the US soldiers killed in Iraq have died
at the hands of al-Zarqawis men He was an embarrassment to the
resistance itself, said Ghassan al-Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator. They
never liked him taking all the limelight
Lawrence Wright opined that he started targeting Shias to awaken
the Sunnis by dragging the Shia into the arena of sectarian war
Zarqawis method, which was to target the people who could turn Iraq into a
functioning society teachers, doctors, courageous political thinkers He
pioneered a new mode of communication; videotaping the beheading and
releasing them.
He added that only a few months earlier Zawahiri had congratulated
Zarqawi for overseeing more than eight hundred suicide operations,
claiming; this is what has broken the back of America in Iraq, but,
Zarqawis obsession with the Shia led Zawahiri to write a letter to him
last July. Why were there attacks on Shia? Zawahiri demanded. Can the
Mujahideen kill all the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever
tried that? He also said that the gruesome scenes of execution should stop.

Rest of the world had slightly different view of his role in

insurgency in Iraq. Gulf News wrote, the Shiites were not al-Zarqawis
only enemies. They included Sunnis, Kurds and everyone who believes in a
united, peaceful and democratic Iraq a goal that appears closer following the
death of the terror leader
Indian Express said, after combining his own organization with that
of the al-Qaeda in Iraq during 2004, al-Zarqawi emerged as the brain
behind the devastating threat to the Iraqi government and American
occupation forces.
The insurgency led by al-Zarqawi was not mobilizing Iraqi
nationalism against American occupation As he sought to establish an
Islamic caliphate in Iraq, his targets were American troops, Iraqi
constitutional forces, Shias and Kurds.
The News, however, more than agreed with the civilized world. For
some, the Jordanian may have been a heroic figure of sorts battling the US
army and its allies in Iraq, but the truth of the matter is that he was a
ruthless killer who tried to exploit Iraqs sectarian divide to incite a civil
war by targeting Shias.

364

FACTS AND MYSTERY

The man, who got as much of media coverage as Bush in recent
years, was named Ahmed Fadhil al-Khalayleh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He
was born in to Palestinian refugee parents in Jordans industrial town of
Zarqa. Little is known about early days of his life.
He moved to Afghanistan in 1991 when he was in mid twenties and
set up a military camp in Herat province soon after his arrival. Reportedly,
al-Qaedas Egyptian security chief, Saif al-Adl helped Zarqawi establish a
camp in Afghanistan, near the Iranian border.
He returned to Jordan and launched a violent campaign to replace
Jordans monarchy with an Islamist state. He was jailed for 15 years in 1996
but was freed three years later under an amnesty when King Abdullah
assumed the throne. He memorized Quraan while he was in prison.
Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in 1999, around the same time as Zawahiri.
America suspected that Saddam was courting al-Qaeda at that time. In 2002,
a Jordanian court sentenced him to death in absentia for plotting attacks
against US and Israeli targets in Jordan. During the same year he again came
to Iraq.
By then al-Qaedas founders were immobilized due to the American
invasion of Afghanistan. After the invasion of Iraq, his ability to act was an
affront to the founders in hiding, who were no longer able to control their
own organization. Al-Qaeda began to shape itself around Zarqawis
organizational experience.
He was again sentenced to death by a Jordanian court in April 2004
for planning the assassination of US diplomat Laurence Foley in the capital
of Amman in 2002. The same year, he changed his groups name from
Tawhidwal Jihad to al-Qaeda and Osama appointed him as his deputy in
October 2004.
US forces announced $ 25 million bounty on his head. Reportedly, he
was caught during American attack on Fallujah but released because he was
not identified. It is also reported that coalition forces came close to capturing
him several times since 2003.
In December 2005, Jordans state security court handed Zarqawi his
third death sentence in absentia for planning a failed suicide attack at the
border post with Iraq. On 7th June, he was killed at the age of 39, after his
abode was identified with the help of Jordanian intelligence agencies.

365

His strategy was different from Osama, but both wanted to establish
Islamic governments in Muslim countries and supported Muslim freedom
movements. Some experts thought that Zarqawi was the herald of a new
generation of terrorist whose roots were in street crime, not in Islamic
militancy.

The mystery surrounding the monster added to the curiosity of the

analysts and resulted in contrasting inferences. Sami Moubayed was of the
view that Zarqawi, after all, did not have the religious legitimacy to become
the No 1 leader of political radical Islam. Nor did he have the family
heritage, connections and money of bin Laden Nor did he have the
education and record of someone like Dr Ayman al-Zarqawi, bin Ladens
deputy. Zarqawi was a terrorist who appeared out of seemingly
nowhere, to inflict as much hardship and pain on the Iraqis and the
Americans as he could.
He added, since Zarqawi appeared on the world stage in 2003, he has
been a phenomenon that has overshadowed his boss, Osama bin Laden.
Many in the Arab World doubted whether the Jordanian-born Zarqawi even
existed.
Many argued that Zarqawi was created by the Americans to justify
their problems in Iraq. Whenever something went wrong, they would blame
it on Zarqawi. Or as Arab radicals would say, he was created by the
Americans to pin their crimes on him. And even in the US, on April 10 the
Washington Post said the US military had conducted major propaganda to
exaggerate Zarqawis role in Iraq He concluded that while Zarqawi may
not have been created by the Americans, he certainly was magnified by
them, and inflated to dramatic proportions to justify why Iraq was in such a
mess.
Chris Floyd opined Zarqawi group quite fortuitously dubbed itself
al-Qaeda in Iraq just around the time that the Bush Administration began
changing its pretext for the conquest from eliminating Iraqs (non-existent)
weapons of mass destruction to fighting terrorist over there so we dont
have to fight them over here.
The name change of the Zarqawi gang from its cumbersome original
the Monotheism and Holy War Group to the more media-sexy Qaeda
brand was thus a PR godsend for the Bush Administration, which was
then able to associate the widespread uprising against the Coalition
occupation with cave-dwelling dastards of the bin Laden organization.

366

This proved an invaluable tool for the Pentagons massive psyop campaign against the American people, which was successful in
sufficiently obscuring reality and defusing rising public concerns about what
many experts have termed the full-blown FUBAR in Iraq until after the
2004 elections.
However, in the last year, even the reputed presence of a big stoking
al-Qaeda be header guy roaming at will across the land has not prevented a
catastrophic drop in support for President Bush in general and the war in
Iraq in particular.
With the Zarqawi theme thus producing diminishing returns, the
Administration has had another stroke of unexpected luck with his
reputed sudden demise. Moreover, the fact that Zarqawi was killed in a
military action means that Mr Bush will not have to cough up the $ 25
millionthe money will now be given to Mr Bushs favourite charity
His death came as no real surprise. After all, approximately 376 of
his top lieutenants had been killed or captured by Coalition forces in the
past three years, according to press reports, and some 5,997 lower-ranking
al-Qaeda terrorists have been killed in innumerable operations during the
same period, according to Pentagon press releases.
With the widespread, on-going, much publicized discrimination of
his group, Zarqawi had obviously been rendered isolated and ineffective
except of course for the relentless series of high-profile terrorist spectaculars
he kept carrying out, according to other Pentagon press releases.
News of the reputed rub-out brought bipartisan praise. This
enormous victory in the War on Terror is due entirely to the courage and
wisdom of the president, squealed Senate Majority Leader Lick Spittle of
Tennessee. He has seen us through when so many of the flag-burning
destroyers of marriage wanted to cut and run. I think this president is the
best president the world has ever seen, and if I am ever fortunate enough to
be chosen as president by the American people minus the three million or so
whose votes will be discarded, lost, inadvertently mangled or just ignored, of
course I promise Ill be a president just like him.
Before the war, Zarqawi and his band of non-Iraqi Islamic extremists
had camp in northern Iraq, in territory controlled by American-backed
Kurdish forces, who had wrested it from the hands of Saddam Hussein. US
Special Forces, CIA agents and other American personnel had a free hand to
operate there; indeed, anti-Saddam Iraqi exiles held open meetings in the
territory, safe from the reach of the dictator.
367

In June 2002, American forces closed in on Zarqawis location. They

prepared a detailed attack plan that would have destroyed the terror band.
But their request to strike was turned down not once, but twice by the
White House, Administration officials feared that such a strike would have
muddled the waters in their public relations effort to foment war fever
against Saddams regime.
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon had similar view. Top military
intelligence officials knew he was in Iraq and traveling around the country
before the United States invasion, but they did not fully recognize that he
was preparing for an insurgency. The Bush Administration found it more
useful to point to Mr Zarqawi as a link between the regime of Saddam
Hussein and al-Qaeda, which, at the time, he was not. It has been reported
that twice the administration passed on the opportunity to attack his camp in
the Kurdish area of Iraq, evidently believing that it would detract from the
more important goal of toppling Saddam Hussein.
Patrick Cockburn wrote, he owed his rise to the US in two different
ways: His name was unknown when he was suddenly denounced on
February 5, 2003 by Collin Powell, the US secretary of State, before the UN
Security Council as the link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. There
turned out to be no evidence for this connection and al-Zarqawi did not at
this time belong to al-Qaeda It fitted in with Washingtons political
agenda that attacking Iraq was part of the war on terror.
The invasion gave al-Zarqawi a further boost. Within months of
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein the whole five-million strong Sunni Arab
community in Iraq opposed the occupation. He found ready-made bed rock
of support in Iraq. Osama bin Laden and the original al-Qaeda had never had
this degree of acceptance
The next critical moment in al-Zarqawis career was the capture
of Saddam Hussein on December 15, 2003. Previously US military and
civilian spokesmen had blamed everything on the former Iraqi leader No
sooner had Saddam Hussein been captured than the US spokesmen began to
mention al-Zarqawis name in every sentence.
It emerged earlier this year that the US emphasis on al-Zarqawi as
the prime leader of the Iraqi resistance was part of a carefully calculated
propaganda program. Kimmit, the chief US military spokesman of that
time had said, the Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful
information campaign to date. The US Zarqawi campaign was largely aimed

368

at the American voter. It was intent on hammering in the message that the
invasion of Iraq was a reasonable response to the 9/11 attacks
In an increasingly anti-American Arab World hostility from the US
made it easy for al-Zarqawi develop his own organization and finance it.
With change of name to al-Qaedas Organization in Iraq, it became a
powerful force.
Eric S Matgolis dug out more details. Zarqawi will be dead soon,
two of his disgruntled Jordanian supporters told me last March. He will be
betrayed by his own men. Thats likely what happened, contrary to US
reports of having tracked down Iraqs most-wanted militant. Tipped off that
al-Zarqawi was in the safe house outside the city of Baqouba, US aircraft
bombed it, killing him, and some other yet unidentified occupants.
Zarqawi, who had been a member of a mainly Kurdish anti-Saddam
militant group, set up his own small radical organization. After invasion of
Iraq, he claimed it al-Qaeda in Iraq. This deception was enhanced by
faked letters supposedly intercepted by US forces claiming to show
Zarqawi was part of al-Qaeda and acting under bin Ladens direct orders.
The real al-Qaeda was most displeased by Zarqawis brazen
trademark infringement Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Dr Ayman alZawahiri, repeatedly criticized Zarqawis bloody attacks on Muslim
civilians, his kidnapping, and gruesome decapitations of hostages as unIslamic.
Iraqs 20-odd resistance groups battling US-British occupation also
strongly denounced Zarqawis murderous car and truck bombing rampages
aimed at igniting a civil war between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds. Numerous
Iraqi resistance leaders and some Arab media even claimed Zarqawi and
his henchmen were covert agents provocateurs working for the US and
Britain to stir up ethnic tensions as part of Britains old divide and rule
techniques This sounded far-fetched until the arrest in Basra of British
SAS commandos armed with explosives and disguised as Arabs, leading
many to believe Zarqawis men were western double agents.
Ironically, the only people who may miss him are the Bush
Administrations pro-war neoconservatives. Zarqawi played a major
starring role in US propaganda efforts to convince credulous Americans that
the Bush Administration launched an unprovoked invasion of oil-rich Iraq
as the central front in the war on terrorism.

369

Robert Fisk wrote, because Zarqawi met Bin Laden in 2002 and then
took up residence in a squalid valley in northern IraqMessrs Bush and
Blair concocted the fable that this proved the essential link between the
Beast of Baghdad and the international crimes against humanity The date
on which this fictitious alliance was proclaimed was February 5, 2003. The
location of the lie was the United Nations Security Council and the man who
uttered it was the then Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
Sidney Blumenthal said, since the rise of the Iraqi insurgency, US
military intelligence has been directed to build up Zarqawis profile as its
leader through a psychological warfare (psyop) effort One military
intelligence officer involved stated that Zarqawis followers were a very
small part of the actual numbers of insurgents, but this had little bearing on
the programme.
The Washington Post supported official US line on al-Qaeda link
with Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that most analysts have rejected that
and rightly so. Mr Powell noted that in May 2002, Zarqawi traveled to
Baghdad for medical treatment and spent two months recuperating there:
during this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and
established a base of operation there. These al-Qaeda affiliates, based in
Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into
and throughout Iraq for his network, and they have now been operating
freely in the capital for more than eight months.
Indeed, a careful reading of the section of the report dealing with prewar intelligence (much of it blacked out for intelligence reasons) suggests
that the Zarqawi connection was just one of many reports of links between
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that US intelligence devoted considerable
time to investigating in the years leading up to the war.
Noam Chomsky, without indulging in debate over Saddams link with
al-Qaeda, held US responsible for spread of terrorism. Hes had a horrible
role that was basically created by the Iraq invasion, which we cant escape
responsibility for the invasion was an enormous stimulant for terrorism, as
was anticipated.

LIKELY IMPACT
Experts disagreed on possible effects of Zarqawis killing, but
majority said violence would outlive the fallen resistance leader. Kamran
Shafi said, those who live by the sword die by the sword and all that. But
370

will Zarqawis death bring to an end the murder and the mayhem let loose in
Iraq ever since that country was assaulted by the United States and Britain
for no good reason at all? Or will it be Zarqawi is dead, long live Zarqawi
as another, then another, takes his place? The latter, I am afraid

The dilemma now is that with that come expectations that the
insurgency will dissipate. I dont think it will happen, it will continue,
said Ranstrop. Of course, its not enough, agreed Rosemary Hollis, Middle
East specialist at British think tank Chatham House. It reminds me of when
Saddam Hussein was captured, she said, adding people had feared the Iraqi
dictator would come back, but it didnt bring an end to the insurgency.
Syed Saleem Shahzad wrote, Zarqawis killing could be blessing for
the Iraqi resistance, in which his notoriously awkward personality was a
problem: he resisted strict orders from the al-Qaeda leadership to reconcile
differences between Sunnis and Shiites. In fact, he did his best to
exacerbated sectarian strife.
The New York Times observed, as American discovered earlier, after
Saddam Husseins two sons were killed and the Iraqi dictator himself was
arrested, it will take far more than the elimination of a handful of iconic
leaders to stem the tide of the Iraqi insurgency and reverse the countrys
alarming slide into civil war.
Indian Express had similar views. Just as Saddam Husseins capture
at the end of 2003 did not put an end to the Iraqi insurgency, it is by no
means clear that the killing of al-Zarqawi would break the back of the
opposition in Iraq. No one is denying the centrality of al-Zarqawi in
organizing the terror attacks, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq in the last
couple of years.
David W Brannan said that it will have little or no effect on the
insurgency An al-Qaeda Website has already declared him a martyr. New
leadership has likely stepped into place and is probably planning the next
attacks on Iraqi Shiites and coalition forces.
His glorious martyrdom at American hands will probably prove a
potent recruitment tool for the fighters he trained The overarching
problem is that death and martyrdom are all that any al-Qaeda man wants, so
Zarqawi may be as effective in death at inspiring terrorist acts as he was
in life In fact, his death could motivate the insurgency in the same way
that the 1995 assassination of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Fathi Shiqiqi
proved a recruitment tool for Palestinians.

371

The foreign fighters in Iraq are not likely to go home because their
leader has been slain. His death could actually make it easier for them to
form partnerships with the Sunni insurgent groups who disliked Zarqawis
tactics.
Eric S Matgolis wrote, Zarqawis death may mean a lessening of
murderous attacks on Shia civilians, but is unlikely to take the heat of USBritish occupation forces. In fact his death might even promote better
Sunni-Shia relations, allowing for the emergence of a more independentminded Iraqi government that could increasingly reject Washingtons neartotal guidance.
Assassinating Zarqawi will give Bush a short-lived bump in the polls.
But in the longer run, killing him was perhaps not such a great idea. For the
US, Zarqawi was far more useful alive. Iraqis, however, will be
universally better off.
The News opined that his death is unlikely to bring peace, stability or
democracy to Iraq any time soon. In fact, the number of attacks against the
US-led occupying forces may well rise, in retaliation for his death. The daily
newspaper then pointed towards the reasons as to why his death will have
no affect on insurgency.
Then the question becomes: what causes the Zarqawis of this world
to be born? The stock answer will be: US policies on the Middle East,
Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq the Islamic World in general and specifically
Iraqs invasion If America is indeed such a champion of peace and
democracy and wants to bring these good things to the Middle East, it
should leave Iraq as soon as it can and impress upon its various allies in the
region to undertake serious political and social reforms.
Sidney Blumenthal wrote, in a new documentary, Meeting
Resistance, insurgents explain their motives and actions, from the first days
of insurgency until now. I began to see somethingthat we had become an
occupied country, says one. Some express their hostility in 2004 to
Zarqawi as an obstacle to unity against the occupation but not as an
impediment to the insurgencys popular growth. Whether Zarqawi is
captured dead or alive has no impact, says an insurgent.
Jonathan Steele wrote, in a country occupied by foreign troops and
where the government is not perceived as independent, the most powerful
source of that support is nationalism. The occupiers are the insurgents
best recruiting tool.

372

Nasim Zehra said that resistance groups believe that they would
force the America Satan to redraw its steps in the Muslim World, they
would battle for the soul of Islam, they would capture the state and
implement true Islam, they would impose a global morality based on their
belief system, they would help people prepare for the hereafter
She opined, the problem is not religion, it is politics. Although in
many cases the politics has also influenced the core beliefs and practices
of certain Muslim groups. However the issue still is the exposure that these
groups got through the Afghan War. Had the Christian right been used in an
Afghan-like jihad and then allowed free play within the US territory
alongside growing communism within USs bordering states, the Christian
rights militancy would have been on the rise. Hence this debate on Islam
and terrorism is misplaced. It is simplistic.
After all where was the so-called nexus between Islam and terrorism,
before the international Afghan jihad; almost nowhere. The other important
fact that flows from this first is then where do we go from here; towards
greater reason. But not without justice.
Security measures alone are inadequate. The response has to be a
multi-layered one. It has to change the context in which all this, is
continuing. Only change in this context will help to definitively deal with
the challenge of terrorism. Zarqawis departure is only an event one that
will not dent the reality that exists; that flourishes in a given context.
She had also pointed out that the invasion of Iraq and the conduct of
the US war in Iraq provided fertile ground to these groups And the
atrocities, the acute abusive behaviour of primarily the American soldiers in
Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib and the stories of an Iraqi
version of the massacre at My-Lai, for many would justify much of what
these groups stand for.
Kamran Shafi was also of the view that the reason was the brutal
nature of war, rather than mere occupation of Iraq. There are as many
Zarqawis out there as there are instances of US high-handedness, such
as troops running wild and killing whoever comes in their way.
There are kidnappings for ransom of school children because there is
no law and order; as there are sectarian killings of innocent people because
the occupying powers foolishly gave one sect preference over the other. And
so on There is another important reason that he will be emulated by
many others. And that is the completely avoidable importance the United
States government and its Brit sidekick gave the man in death.
373

Lawrence Wright said, bin Laden and Zawahiri may try to return alQaeda to its more disciplined and popular incarnations, but it is Zarqawis
example that will inspire many in the new generation of jihadis. Its going
to be like Afghanistan all over again, Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent who
has interrogated dozens of al-Qaeda members, said. The difference is that
these guys are far more radical.
Sami Moubayed said that it is wrong to say that Zarqawi was the lone
driving force behind insurgency in Iraq. As the British Broadcasting Corp
reported, it is likely he (Zarqawi) has had a considerable impact in terms of
leadership, tactics and inspiration. But he was not a one-man band.
Indian Express said, the US itself has been saying that the al-Qaeda is
not a centrally controlled organization. Its loose structuring through the
independently operating cells of terrorists, it is said, has allowed it to
survive the big reverses in Afghanistan and threaten the rest of the world.
Robert Fisk wrote, they had got their man, the instigator of civil war,
the flame of sectarian hatred, the head chopper Maybe he was all these
things; or maybe not. But it will bring the war no neared to its end, not
because of the inevitable Islamic rhetoric about the thousand Zarqawis who
will take his place, but because individuals no longer control if they
ever did the inferno of Iraq.
Zarqawis demise and only al-Qaedas killers would have listened
to him, not the ex-Iraqi army officers who run the real Iraqi insurgency
will not make an iota of difference to the slaughter in Mesopotamia But
this raised another question. Will the eventual departure of Bush and Blair
provide an opportunity to end this hell/disaster? Or have the results of their
folly also taken on a life of their own, unstoppable by any political change in
Washington or London? Already we forget the way in which the same
American forces credited with Zarqawis death had proved only a few weeks
ago that he was a humbling incompetent.
Los Angeles Times said, without Zarqawi, as even President Bush
noted in the Rose Garden, the insurgency and attacks in Iraq will continue.
Without a competent government, however, there is no hope for an end
to the violence Because Zarqawi was a foreign interloper, his passing will
hardly be mourned by ordinary Iraqis quite the contrary. By the same
token, however, his removal doesnt materially alter tensions between
native Sunni and Shia factions.
Gulf News wrote, Zarqawi had been promoting a civil war in Iraq.
He almost managed to ignite a conflict when his militants bombed a Shiite
374

holy shrine a few months ago. The wisdom of Iraqi religious and political
leaders may have managed to contain the crisis then, but the threat remained
visible. And inter-sectarian relations have been tense ever since.
Andrew J Bacevich also quoted Shia-Sunni tensions as the reason. As
satisfying as Zarqawis elimination may be, the impact of his demise will be
slight. Zarqawi himself is not irreplaceable. Nor is al-Qaeda the primary
source of the violence that has destabilized Iraq. Sectarian divisions remain
and are the larger problem.
Jonathan Steele wrote, the amount of blood spilt in recent sectarian
assaults, particularly since the bombing of the Shrine at Samarra, is
horrendous. Killings of Sunnis by Shia militants, often linked to government
ministries, have also become rampant A cycle of violence and revenge
has been set in motion, and will not easily be reduced. So Zarqawis death
may have little impact in the short term. It will not affect the nationalist
insurgency that targets the Americans and British, and those defined as
collaborating with them.
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon wrote, the decapitation of the
Zarqawi network may indeed diminish its effectiveness, but we should not
get our hopes too high The evil that men do live after them, said
Shakespeares Mark Anthony, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi left more than his
share. The most important lesson of his reign of terror was the mirror it held
up to our misunderstanding of the jihadist threat.
The two analysts by pointing out our misunderstanding of the jihadist
threat had stressed on the need to sell the war and Eric S Matgolis had the
answer. The Iraqi resistance is fragmented into more than a score of
shadowy groups. No single leader has yet emerged. Now that Zarqawi is
gone, the US will need to find another demonic figure with which to keep
selling the war to Americans at home and to US troops in Iraq, 75 percent
of whom still amazingly believe Saddam Hussein launched the 9/11 attacks.
Benjamin and Simon had also feared that militancy was like to
spread. Despite not having Mr bin Ladens stature, Mr Zarqawi may yet
wind up having at least as powerful an impact on the fate of nations. He
viewed Iraq as a base for destabilizing countries in the Middle East, and had
already begun exporting terrorism from Iraq The threat of a broader
conflict between Islams two largest sects now hangs over a broad swath
of the world.

375

As such, fears are growing of unrest in countries like Saudi Arabia,

whose Shiite minority is concentrated in the Eastern Province, where the
largest oil fields are; Bahrain, which has a Sunni monarchy and Shiite
minority; and Pakistan, which has been plagued by violence for decades.
Should the sectarian conflict in Iraq worsen, Sunni neighbours like Turkey
and Saudi Arabia could soon be facing off against Shiite Iran.
Farther a field, Mr Zarqawi had been rapidly building a network
that has raised the anxieties of intelligence and law enforcement officials
in Europe and elsewhere. This adds more complexity to the situation for
those who were trying to cope with the new breed of so-called self-starter
terrorists, like those responsible for the bombings in London last year and
Madrid the year before.
Mr Zarqawis operatives are at work in 40 countries and linked
with 24 extremist organizations. At a terrorism trial in Germany last fall, a
judge declared, Zarqawi should also be sitting on the defendants bench. In
Afghanistan, local intelligence experts believe that Mr Zarqawi was
responsible for dispatching operatives to increase the violence against the
government and NATO forces.
Ayman El-Amir observed the same after looking at the opposite side.
The killing of al-Qaedas maverick lieutenant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is a
victory for US forces in Iraq but marks a gathering storm for US policies
in the Middle East and elsewhere. It will serve the revival of the old
confrontation between the way the US conducts business with the world and
the inexhaustible forces of change that refuse to submit to the American
model, especially when it appears to have lost its moral connections to the
forces of globalization.
Whether al-Zarqawi goes down in history as a martyr or a terrorist is
beside the point. The US invasion of Iraq ignited flames of sectarian
violence that will be difficult to extinguish for years to come. What is
more important is that it gave the forces of change in the Middle East and
beyond a casus belli against the US and its protgs and made Iraq the
melting pot of the jihad-based culture of armed resistance.
The Arab Worlds post-independence development was ham-strung
When all formulas failed to achieve the aspirations of people, Islamists
moved in. As they had proved their credibility in Afghanistan, they returned
to their failed homelands to declare a new brand of faith-based
revolutionary activism, proclaiming; Islam is the solution. It was a

376

rallying call that few could dispute and it spread like wildfire to wherever a
muezzin praised the name of Allah
There were few who expressed optimism that Zarqawis death
would help in controlling the insurgency; obviously Maliki had to be one of
them. This government will build on the additional momentum gained
from the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in order to defeat terrorism and
sectarianism and to deliver on the Iraqi peoples hope of a united, stable and
prosperous democracy by following a three-pronged strategy: We will draw
on the countrys untapped workforce to kick-start extensive reconstruction,
put into motion an initiative for genuine national reconciliation, and increase
the intensity and efficacy of building the military and police.
The Daily Star argued that his death has to be seen as an
opportunity to stem a wave of bloodletting so unrelenting that many long
for the days of Saddam Hussein. As head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawis
apocalyptic worldview and his savage implementation thereof made it
impossible to conceive of a scenario under which anything might bring
Sunni militants to the arena of legitimate political activities that Iraq is
trying to build. That a turning point has been reached is undeniable: What
remains to be seen is whether wiser sorts on all sides will be able to make
the most of it.
Without the presence of Zarqawi as a driving force for the
perpetual acceleration of the conflict, it might be possible to engage hardline Sunnis and convince them that their best interests lie in seeking an
acceptable compromise that would permit all Iraqis to at last put conflict
behind them and get on with the business of rebuilding their shattered
country.
There should be no illusions about what is required. Those who have
led and participated in the insurgency are deeply committed to a vision of
Iraq that is difficult to reconcile with that promulgated by those who have
chosen to work with the occupation forces. At bottom, however, all Iraqis
must be able to agree that wiping out tens of thousands of innocent
civilians and scaring a generation of children can hardly qualify as sturdy
pillars of statesmanship.

CONCLUSIONS
Celebration of the victory that came in the form of Zarqawis killing
lacked the usual rejoicing in the civilized world. The Crusaders and their
377

allies from Muslim ruling elite might have heaved a sigh of relief. So should
have been with Osama and Zawahiri but for different reason.
Bush and Blair were conspicuous in avoiding boasting as was seen at
the time of Saddams arrest. Instead of indulging in jubilations, they talked
of testing-time ahead. It seemed that they war has taught them that killing or
capturing one man does not promise the victory.
Zarqawis group, which mostly recruited the fighters from outside
Iraq, was a small percentage of the insurgents. However, western
propaganda was able to project him as the driving force behind bloodletting
in Iraq with the aim of demonizing the insurgents as foreign terrorists.
Of course, he was ruthless in carrying out attacks on illegal
occupants of Iraq and their collaborators. He introduced the most feared
weapon of human bombs to cause shock and awe in the rank and file of
US-led coalition forces. He also targeted followers of a particular sect, not to
punish them as Shias but as collaborators of occupation forces.
Because of his ruthlessness, he was branded as criminal, the
deadliest terrorist with the sole agenda of killing innocent people. His
crimes, suicide bombings in particular, were invariably reported with the
mention of jihad, with larger aim of demonizing an entire civilization
rather than an individual.
Was he the real culprit for all the war crimes committed in Iraq? In
fact, his ruthless attacks were no match to the brutality of the Crusaders
which was inflicted in the form of collateral damage. For this reason alone,
to cover up their war crimes, the Americans had to exaggerate his evil
deeds.
For his attacks targeting Shias, he was blamed for igniting civil war,
while ignoring the death squads which had been operating under supervision
of interior ministry on the behest of the occupation forces. Shia-Sunni strife
or civil war suited the occupation forces as it took focus off them. The
Crusaders also cleverly exploited the sectarian divide to their advantage
aiming at exhausting Iraqis will to fight.
He was also accused exporting terrorism to destabilize other countries
in the region. Couple of attacks in Jordan, which targeted foreigners, could
in no way destabilize the region any further which had been rocked by
invasions and occupations of two countries.
His death will not have any significant impact on the ongoing cycle of
violence. Insurgency will continue in Iraq. In fact, the Crusaders may
378

sponsor the spread of Shia-Sunni strife in the region as they are least pushed
about peace and stability of the Islamic World.
As regards his killing, it may be said that his elimination had become
necessary, because so many forces were hunting for him and he could fall
into anybodys hands. In such eventually the myth about the monster would
have been resolved. However, ghost of the dead monster, will keep haunting
his killers.
But, a monster has become an indispensable necessity for selling the
war. Americas psyop machine will soon invent another monster. US
commanders in Iraq had wasted no time in speculating about the new
monster likely to succeed Zarqawi.
History has to pass the verdict on many aspects of the ongoing war.
Some of these are: Whose cause is more just, moral and legal? Who
perpetrated more death and destruction? Who has committed more crimes
against humanity? In the context of resistance in Iraq, who engineered and
benefited from the fanning the sectarian strife? The prevailing perceptions,
caused by the western media, will certainly be altered drastically. Bush may
ultimately find the elusive victory and beat his enemies on all counts
enumerated above. Last, but not the least, the wisdom of the Muslim
leaders in siding with the Crusaders, may turn out to be a combination of
cowardice and stupidity.
18th June 2006

HUNG ON THE HOOK

On 3rd June, Rumsfeld said, Pakistan is doing good job against terror.
Three days later, during tripartite meeting held in Islamabad, Afghanistan
wanted more help from Pakistan on terror control. The complaint was
lodged in the presence of US and NATO representatives.
Pakistans contribution in war on terror was not enough to dispel
Crusaders prejudices against it, but Pakistani Envoy in Washington claimed
that Pak-US relations were improving. It was not understood that what
379

higher status the improvement aimed at, because Pakistan already

enjoyed the status of strategic partner and Non-NATO ally.
On 6th June, Foreign Office spokesperson expressed disappointment
over slow pace of composite dialogue. Pakistan could find no way to
accelerate the pace. Manmohan further added to the disappointments when
he acted on advice and cancelled his trip to Pakistan.
On home front there was quiet as compared to the hectic months of
recent past. As Opposition parties worked to form a united front, the ruling
coalition experienced a rift between PML-Q and MQM. There was some
decrease in militancy in Baluchistan.

SERVING CRUSADERS
There was no let in the war for Afghan peace. Following incidents
were reported in last four weeks:
Two soldiers were killed in suicide attack near Miranshah on 28 th
May. An electricity tower in Yakaghund area near Ghalanai.
On 29th May, three children were killed in landmine blast in Bajaur
Agency. A convoy was attacked with a bomb and one civilian was
killed in retaliatory fire.
FC soldier was wounded in roadside bombing in North Waziristan on
30th May. On intervention of US military, Pakistan Army returned the
two vehicles seized from Afghan troops who had intruded into Shawal
Valley four days ago. Next day rockets were fired at a post in Wana.
On 2nd June, five army soldiers were killed and seven wounded in a
suicide attack near Bakkakhel on Frontier Region Bannu; two
attackers also perished. A sepoy of Levies was killed and a tehsildar
was wounded in bomb blast in Bajaur.
Two army soldiers were killed and two wounded in roadside bombing
in North Waziristan on 4th June and one Khassadar was killed and four
civilians wounded in retaliatory fire by artillery.
On 5th June, one soldier was killed and another wounded when
militants fired rockets at a check point in North Waziristan. Next day,
authorities foiled a terror bid in Bajaur Agency and recovered four
missiles. Thirty Afghans were arrested while crossing the border.

380

 Pro-government tribal elder escaped attempt on his life in Bajaur

Agency on 6th June. Two army soldiers were wounded in roadside
bombing in North Waziristan.
Gunship helicopters attack and artillery fire killed 20 suspected
militants on 10th June near Dattakhel in North Waziristan. Uzbeks,
Tajiks and Chechens were believed to be among the dead. Curfew was
clamped in Bara after armed lashkar tried to take over the control.
On 11th June, beheaded body of an Afghan suspected of spying for US
was found near border with Khost province. Toll of militants killed in
raid near Dattakhel rose to 30 as reported by army sources.
A bomb exploded near Bannu on road Bannu-Kohat on 13th June.
Next day, dead body of journalist was found, who was kidnapped
from South Waziristan in December.
Journalists boycotted National Assembly proceedings on 17th June and
demanded judicial probe into colleagues murder. Some journalists
blamed agencies for kidnapping and killing the journalist.
Pakistan Interior Minister, Sherpao asked Karzai to put his house in
order. He denied Osamas presence on Pakistani soil and accepted large
number of Pakistanis in Afghan jails. He also ruled out US hot pursuit
operations along Durand Line which were hinted at after reports of Osamas
presence in Kumrat Valley.
General Karamat urged reduction of forces in tribal areas and need for
resolution of the problem through dialogue. On 15 th June, in a meeting of
Joint Economic Commission held in Islamabad, Pakistan did not agree on
Indian transit trade with Afghanistan through Wagha border. This was one of
the rare occasions where Islamabad refused undue favours to Kabul.
The News commented on the hot pursuit issue. It should be
Pakistans responsibility not Americas to trace and arrest al-Qaeda
operatives inside Pakistan. Pakistanis would not like to see US soldiers on
their territory in pursuit of whoever, just like Americans living in Texas
would not be too happy to see the Mexican army cross the border in search
of some wanted men. In any case, the quality of American intelligence (no
pun intended) itself is debatable
There is another aspect to this issue of hot pursuit and that has to do
with the fact that Pakistan can hardly afford to open a new front with the
situation in North and South Waziristan as it is. The residents of Kumrat
381

Valley, in a district where the Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi was

born, are generally sympathetic with the parties that make up the MMA and
the Taliban, and share much of their extreme worldview and anti-American
sentiment. Any idea of allowing an outside military to come in and catch
any one, even as wanted as Mr Laden, would be like playing the fire.
There was no worthwhile progress in repatriation of Afghan
refugees. Lt Col M Afzal Sadiq from Attock wrote, Afghans living in
major Pakistani cities, apart from other nuisances, are a security threat.
Pakistan should establish two or three camps near the Afghan border where
these refugees should be shifted. UN under NATO should sustain the
financial burden to run these camps till the time is right to repatriate them to
their country.
Brig Asad Munir analyzed the prevalent sentiment in tribal areas.
The youth of the tribal people are not willing to listen to their rulers. The
authority of the elders and the maliks has eroded considerably. The
administration paradigm at the agency level is witnessing a major shift in
favour of religious functionaries. Religious leaders are exponents of the
ummah which transcends tribal and national boundaries. A visible change
has appeared in the tribal social structure and in the concept of
traditional loyalty and affinity to ones tribe. Irrespective of their clan
affiliations, the madrassa students are now inclined towards their teachers
and elders.
He suggested strengthening of the office of the Political Agent
Honest, experienced and competent officers should be selected and their
tenure of posting should be fixed for a specified period The proposed
appointments of serving army officers as political agents may prove
counterproductive and aggravate the situation.
Khaleej Times wrote about the futility of military operations in tribal
areas. Over 2,000 people many of them innocent civilians have been
killed in the so-called war on terror in Pakistans battle zone. Yet, despite
these heavy losses on both sides, these efforts havent been terribly
successful Actually, Pakistan is chasing a wrong target in a futile war.
The roots of this problem lie across the border in Afghanistan. Pakistan
cannot deal with this problem as Afghanistan doesnt solve its own: that is,
the alienation of its Pushtun population.
Shireen M Mazari talked about convergence of Indo-US interests in
the context of Afghanistan. General Peter Pace, during his to New Delhi,
urged Pakistan and India to work together to fight the Taliban Does
382

he actually seek a more enlarged Indian military presence in Afghanistan? If

so, is he truly unaware of the security dilemma and threat that would pose to
Pakistan? He also indulged Indian commanders as they apparently
briefed him on New Delhis concerns regarding Pakistans Afghan policy.
Now why should Pakistans Afghan policy be a source of concern for India?
Regarding Pakistans massive contribution in war on terror, she added,
the states role is barely mentioned and an attempt is always made to delink the president from the state which seems to be an effort to
undermine the state of Pakistan by insinuating that the state might not be
fully supportive of the presidents anti-terrorist commitment.
Prof Khurshid Ahmad wrote, America and India have their designs
no doubt, but Pakistan needs to formulate a state policy and devise a
foreign policy based on the concept of independence, instead of
dependence on a single power to the extent of being its camp followers.
Europe, China, Latin America and the Muslim World can all have important
roles in this regard. Japan and Russia too may be quite important forces. We
dont need a reactive foreign policy. We have got to be pro-active.
Nirupama Subramanian saw Pakistan and US as two together, two
apart for reasons in addition to nuclear proliferation. As a country that
continues to see Afghanistan as providing strategic depth against India,
Pakistan is deeply resentful of any Indian involvement in that country.
President Bushs invitation to India to involve itself more in Afghanistan
came at a time when the Pakistan establishment had begun to put out the
allegation that India was backing subversive activity in Baluchistan. For
both critics and supporters of the Pakistani establishment, it was clear after
the Bush visit that the countrys most important ally did not buy that
allegation.
The analyst mentioned some of the reasons for change in US
attitude towards Musharraf:
Anti-West sentiments prevailing among all sections of Pakistanis,
expressed vociferously in the media and by the countrys political
elite during Bush visit.
When the US put the Jamaat-ud-Dawa on its Specially Designated
Global Terrorist list, the Pakistan foreign office said it was not obliged
to follow suit. Other militant and extreme religious outfits banned
by the Musharraf government have made a comeback

383

 The Pakistan Government has also hit out directly against the US by
dismissing accusations by the Government in Kabul that it was
assisting the Taliban to launch attacks in southern Afghanistan.
President Musharraf has also lost no opportunity to show that
unbothered by US opposition to Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline;
he is determined to go ahead with the project.
The US wants Pakistan to do more in hunting al-Qaeda in tribal
areas, but Musharraf was trying to begin a reconciliation process
with the local people in Waziristan who are upset at the military
operations.
Analysts say the ties between the two countries are at their lowest
ebb since 9/11. But does this mean that President Musharraf and the US are
gradually drifting apart? Not yet, is the short answer to that. The analyst
opined that stick and carrot policy will continue for some time. American
demand for direct excess to Dr Khan was quoted as swirling of the success
and decision to sell Harpoon anti-ship missiles as the carrot. Bush
Administration wants him in the saddle, at least for now.
The Crusaders prejudices against Pakistan remained in place.
On 1 June Pakistani-American, Umer Hayat was sentenced to 16 years in
jail for lying to the FBI in a terror probe. The US House of Representatives
demanded handing over of Dr A Q Khan for interrogation about Pakistans
nuclear programme. The Senate unanimously adopted a resolution
expressing grave concern over the unwarranted demand.
st

On 6th June, it was reported that US Congress was poised to approve

F-16 sale to Pakistan. Four days later, US House of Representatives slashed
$ 350 million in foreign aid to Pakistan, citing its poor human rights record
and failure to do enough to improve democracy.
Germany told Pakistan that in future it should contact through
judicial channels to get replies to Amir Cheemas death. It was not
mentioned as to why Pakistan needed answers when a team sent to Berlin
had already endorsed that Amir had committed suicide as claimed by
German authorities?
Pakistani Senators took time to wake up and wishfully demanded of
the foreign office to immediately bring the accused Swiss diplomats back to
Pakistan as they were involved in harassing visa seeker Pakistani women.

384

Couple of days later, Australia warned its citizens of terrorist attacks in

Peshawar.
Nasim Zehra discussed US perceptions of the AQ Khan Network.
The Bush Administration was blamed for not putting enough pressure on
Islamabad to provide direct access to AQ Khan. Administration members
and experts argued that Pakistan had been rewarded with a multi-billion
dollar aid package. They complained that no one from the AQ Khan ring
was prosecuted while AQ Khan himself has been confined to his luxurious
multi-million dollar residence.
The experts also insisted that the Pakistani network was still
operating and that Pakistan continues to smuggle in nuclear technology and
equipment needed for its own nuclear programme. Some of them also
argued that the government of Pakistan still has an intact export network.
Many of these allegations were incorrect and others were outdated.
Some were simply ways of statecraft, not unique to Pakistan. Clearly the AQ
Khan blunder was one of the worst in Pakistans history and the state
has to take responsibility, and it did to the extent it could have given the
broader considerations of national security. Pakistans engagement, in the
post AQ Khan discovery periodin ensuring the security of its nuclear
programme and in tightening its export controls mechanism is now well
known to the Bush Administration.
Why then would the US Administration opt to allow a free hand and
not contest those who want to present Pakistan as an irresponsible nuclear
state? Pakistan should seek an answer to this question. That would be more
effective than making declarations like the one made by the Pakistan foreign
minister on May 9 that yes we are under a lot of pressure on the issue of Dr
AQ Khan, but we will not surrender we are an ally of the US in the global
war on terror, but we will not take dictation from anybody on our national
interests. More importantly than these declarations we should also hold our
friends in Washington accountable for their actions.
In a subsequent analysis, she added, Pakistans nuclear programme
and the AQ Khan affair remain an issue of ongoing divergence between
Washington and Islamabad. Pakistans own political instability and more
importantly the AQ Khan affair obviously put Pakistan in the dock. So has
the broad strategic conclusion in Washington that nuclear weapons in the
hands of a Muslim state are unacceptable.
Steps have been taken without compromising state-controlled tight
security and the secrecy of Pakistans own nuclear programme. Many have
385

been taken with technical support from the US. Despite Pakistans
sensitivity regarding external infringement in the nuclear-strategic area, the
US has been able to secure several important advances in Pakistans
cooperation in these issues, but ones that both sides remain quiet about.
Pakistan needs to be proactive, imaginative and bold A matterof-fact and well-informed debate means that the people of Pakistan are not
reduced to thinking that taking steps to better manage our own nuclear
programme and to become a responsible nuclear state within the
international community amounts to selling or compromising Pakistans
nuclear programme; a fear that has been responsible for the governments
decision to not be more open about the steps taken to safeguard our nuclear
programme and to promote non-proliferation.
Sana Farooq from Rawalpindi opined, Pakistans principled stand
on Irans nuclear programme and Pak-Iran gas pipeline go against US
interests, hence the pressure tactic in the form of calls to reopen the AQ
Khan case In no case the people of Pakistan will allow foreigners direct
access to AQ Khan. It is hoped US lawmakers get the message loud and
clear.

PEACE PROCESS
The worth of composite dialogue was amply indicated by three
events during the period. On 28th May, Pakistan mulled seeking NAM
support on the ongoing dialogue with India, reported Mariana Baabar. On 6 th
June, Foreign Office spokesperson expressed disappointment over slow pace
of composite dialogue. Two days later, Kasuri discussed Indo-Pak ties with
visiting ex foreign minister, Sinha. This could only be termed as back (ward)
channel of diplomacy.

Confidence-building process continued. On the eve of Indo-Pak

anti-terror talks, India released 59 Pakistani fishermen. On 30 th May, the
talks began in Islamabad with exchange of lists of wanted men. Pakistan
presented a list of 55 persons who were allegedly involved in various terror
related incidents. The same day, Pakistan and India wrapped up 4-day talks
on Baglihar Dam in London, which were termed as satisfactory. Next day,
Pakistan and India agreed to release fishermen and civilian prisoners by the
end of June.
The steps and statements negative to confidence-building
outnumbered the CBMs. On 28th May, at least 30 people were injured in
386

Hindu-Muslim clashes in Ahmedabad. The riots spread to Uttar Pardesh next

day in which three persons were killed in Aligarh.
On 1st June, New Delhi High Court asked CBI to probe against IB and
Special Cell of police for falsely implicating one Moarif Qammar as
terrorist. The police had probably done so because his name suggested that
he could be an Islamic terrorist.
On 4th June Indias national security adviser urged Pakistan to curb
terrorism; the same day India test-fired nuclear-capable Prithvi missile. The
worst came a week later when Manmohan acted on advice and cancelled
his trip to Pakistan. Meanwhile, perpetration state terrorism in IHK
continued:
Three freedom fighters and four civilians were killed in separate
incidents in IHK on 28th May.
Three suspected freedom fighters were killed by Indian troops in two
incidents on 29th May. CBI detained three politicians and eight cops in
sex scam.
Two suspected freedom fighters and one policeman were killed in
separate grenade attacks on 30th May.
On 31st May, police killed two persons when it opened fire of people
protesting death of 20 school children who drowned while traveling in
boat of Indian Navy. At least 31 people were wounded when rebels
threw grenades at two tourist buses near Dal Lake.
Next day, five freedom fighters and a soldier were killed in two
separate encounters. Gilani was placed under house arrest. On 5th
June, DSP involved in prostitution case was arrested in Srinagar.
Gilani was arrested on 7th June on charges of spreading communal
hatred. Next day APHC called for strike in protest of Gilanis arrest.
Eleven people were killed and dozens wounded in various incidents of
violence on 12th June. Next day, Shabbir and Bilal Ghani Lone were
arrested when they were on their way to offer condolences.
Three Kashmiris were killed by militants on 15 th June. Next day
Gilani was once again arrested.

Kashmiri leaders kept voicing concerns and demands of their

people. On 30th May, Gilani urged people to raise voice against immorality.

387

Next day, Salahuddin rejected Singhs call to militants to come home. The
home is my home. Nobody can stop to go or enter the home. The question is
the aggressor should get out.
On 12th June, Shabbir Shah warned BJP and Shiv Sena of pursuing
dangerous path of spreading communal hatred and division of Kashmir. He
stated that recent incidents in the state are the outcome of provocative
statements by their leaders, e.g. attack on Gilani, sacrilege of a mosque and
molestation of a college student.
The News did not approve of Mirwaiz dismissing the Srinagar
conference, held during Singhs visit, as a seminar. Realism now dictates
that all sides, even if some chose to launch a boycott, do not reject the
results of the roundtable out of hand. There are some positives such as the
establishment of working groups to discuss proposals related to withdrawal
of Indian security forces from Kashmir, self-rule and autonomy and Mr
Singhs admission that human rights excesses had been committed by the
Indian army and paramilitary forces.
Jyoti Malhotra had more realistic view of Sighs visit to Srinagar and
termed it as another historic event which made no history. Certainly,
the Hurriyats presence alongside the National Conference and the PDP (the
party represented by Mufti Mohammad Saeed and Mehbooba Mufti) would
have given huge legitimacy to the prime ministers Kashmir initiative. But
when it didnt come, it was clear the roundtable would largely be reduced to
yet another bureaucratic exercise.
Most Kashmiris argue that the Hurriyat could not possibly sit
alongside the National Conference or the PDP, because it has always
rejected centrist politics If they had joined the roundtable, they would
have been accused by their support base of betraying the cause of
Kashmir According to this school, the Hurriyat can only redeem
Kashmir if it is able to keep walking this tight rope called the middle
ground. That is, rejecting the politics of Syed Ali Shah Geelani as well as
the position of the Congress
It is said the prime minister himself is keen on understanding what
autonomy really means for Kashmir Reportedly, Mr Singh understands
the role Islamabad has to play in this evolving exercise. In fact, his
opening speech acknowledged for the first time ever, the importance of two
strains that constantly affect the Kashmir issue, relations between DelhiSrinagar, and Delhi-Islamabad.

388

Parkash Nanda found Afghan link to the core issue. The Taliban, alQaeda and Gulbaddin Hekmatyars Hizbe Islami have dramatically stepped
up their activities in Afghan territory from sanctuaries in Pakistan The
Taliban, as evident through the release of its two tapes over the last six
months, is openly talking of Christian-Jew-Hindu conspiracy against Islam
and vowing to liberate Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir.
Secondly, the Taliban do not like the increasing involvement of
India in the economic development of Afghanistan these days. Indias
present commitment adds up to more than US $ 600 million for
Afghanistans reconstruction, including one million tons of wheat as food
assistance All this has disturbed the Taliban and their supporters.
Shireen M Mazari wrote, while the Indians have been exceptionally
clever in creating a myth about their willingness to dialogue on all issues
with Pakistan, while focusing primarily on atmospheric and trade, the reality
of Indias inability and unwillingness to dialogue on the conflictual issues in
a substantive manner occasionally surfaces in bizarre ways that belie claims
of the growing civil society interaction at all levels between Pakistanis and
Indians.
She mentioned the refusal of visas to Pakistani students who had been
invited to attend a seminar/workshop on Kashmir in Pune. We should learn
from these brief revelations of Indias real intent on bilateral conflicts and
its arrogant efforts to shift the focus to atmospherics and platitudes even as it
seeks to undermine at multiple levels internationally
Kamal Matinuddin, true to the thinking of a gentleman urged, we
must continue to remind the US that some movement forward on
Kashmir is necessary. If we avoid unrealistic expectations, we will be able
to achieve maximum cooperation with the US in the fields of energy,
education, health services and defence. While hoping for the best, he
ignored that Americans cooperate only to extent which serves their
interests, not for meeting Pakistans needs.
The agreement on release of prisoners was a welcome move. The
News wrote, as a result of the agreement, 586 prisoners will be exchanged
on June 30. A total of 472 Pakistanis are in Indian jails while 351 Indian
citizens are reported to be in jails in Pakistan. Even after the June 30 swap,
147 prisoners will remain in India and 90 in Pakistan. One hopes that the
process to repatriate them to their respective countries, once their sentences
have been served, will be expedited.

389

The meeting in which both sides agreed to release prisoners had

commenced with exchange of lists of wanted terrorists. Behroz Khan
commented on men most wanted by India. The names of Dawood Ibrahim,
and Maulana Masood Azhar who was released from an Indian jail after the
Indian passenger plane hijacking to Kandahar during the Taliban regime in
1999, surfaced in Pakistani media last week when the issue of handing over
of the two most wanted persons was raised at the secretary-level talks with
India in Islamabad. Maulana Azhar, a Pakistani national, was the founder of
Jaish-e-Mohammad in early 2000, which was later banned by President
General Pervez Musharraf, in January 2002under pressure from
Washington.
Sources in the Afghan border security forces confirmed that President
Hamid Karzais government has tasked the forces under its command to
include the name of Dawood Ibrahim in the list of most wanted terrorists
hunted by the US, Afghanistan and of course the Indian government.
This is reflective of the rising Indian influence in the region.
Afghan forces also claim Dawood Ibrahim might be having a safe
sanctuary in Pakistan, where, they say, he continues to maintain close links
with militant outfits. The US Treasury Department had declared Dawood
Ibrahim a specially designated global terrorist having al-Qaeda links in
October 2003.
Much to Islamabads embarrassment, the Treasury Department in its
reasons for naming Dawood Ibrahim in the list of the worlds worst
terrorists, had cited intelligence reports of his connections with the now
outlawed militant outfits, al-Qaeda and Lashkar-i-Taiba. Out of the banned
Lashkar, emerged Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which has also been put on terror list
by the US, but Pakistan has not followed the suit for a change.

HOME FRONT
Most of the steam generated by the Bush visit was released in the
form Charter of Democracy and with that political process started
returning to normalcy. On 29th May, Chattha and Wattoo met Musharraf and
advised him to strike a deal with Benazir.
Ahsan Iqbal complained that PML-N leaders were being harassed. On
3 June, a court in Islamabad asked Ministry of Interior to manage arrests of
Benazir and Zardadri. Next day PPP slated Nawazs meeting with Justice
Retired, Qayyum Malik. Meanwhile, Chief Minister insisted that he would
rd

390

see merits of each case, despite resolution of the row over his delaying
approval of men recruited by a MQM minister. These were some the issues
mentioned during the period.
Debate on Charter of Democracy continued. Burhanuddin Hasan
wrote, should the two leaders who have signed the Charter of Democracy,
disgraced the National Assembly, and manipulated provincial governments
as they did be given another chance to rule? In fact both leaders debased the
system of democracy during their terms of office. They never cared for the
decorum and dignity of parliament or the Supreme Court.
Adnan Adil said, the PML-N leaders think that by signing the charter,
former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has virtually tied the hands of his
erstwhile rival, Benazir Bhutto, from making a compromise with President
Musharraf. They believe the charter was Sharifs initiative and he
successfully negotiated and managed its conclusion though sharp
differences had existed between the two parties before Benazir Bhutto and
Nawaz Sharif met in London.
In these circumstances when the party is facing desertions and
dissensions, the Charter of Democracy may be good news for the PML-N
supporters, especially if rumours about General Musharrafs weakness turn
out to be true. Otherwise, insiders say, Nawazs chances of coming back
are slim.
The fate of the charter depends upon how Benazir Bhutto plays
her cards. After all, she did not invite the Sharifs to her house, and the
charter was signed in the house of the notorious ex-Director General FIA,
Rehman Malik. She also refused to make the PML-N her electoral ally in the
next general elections as a simultaneous step with the signing of charter. For
many, Benazir Bhutto is too crafty to be taken for granted by the Sharifs.
Khalid Mahmood from Islamabad wrote, the draft of this charter has
not sufficiently dealt with the very fundamental issue of militarization of
all aspects of our society. Evidently, this problem is a logical result of
military domination of our polity for most of its life. I want to highlight just
one aspect of this problem. Presently, serving and retired officers of the
armed forces are occupying hundreds of prized civil positions. This practice
has reached an unprecedented level under the present military regime.
The Charter of Democracy should not only present a consensus on
blocking future military intervention but it must also address the legacy of
the militarys supremacy. The proposed truth commission should also
make an assessment of the complex imprints of military intervention,
391

hegemony and rule on Pakistan society, and provide a roadmap to do away

with them.
Qazi Hussain Ahmad had two observations on the charter. Removing
army interference in state affairs is not an easy job since the army has seated
itself too deep in the politics of this country. A massive movement, wellorganized and well-united, is required to achieve this national goal. Those
with vested interests and patronized by Western powers, wont leave this
nation alone so easily. Unfortunately, the charter is unclear about how the
signatories will mobilize the masses or what they will do if the charter of
their demands is not accepted by the military regime.
The signatories to the charter are conspicuously silent on foreign
policy matters like the crusades against Muslims launched by Bush and
Blair and the use of our military in it The 9/11 Commission has placed on
records its support to the steps that Bush has taken to persecute Muslims.
The military regime is very proud serving the US as a non-NATO
ally and as a frontline force against the Muslims. The charter leaves the
impression that its signatories are inclined to approve the US policies in
this region where India is helped become a regional super-power and
Pakistan is subservient.
In the context of the role of military, Khaleej Times wrote,
Musharraf take-over had not been of his own making. However, once order
and rule of law was restored, the army should have returned to its barracks.
Even if the Generals presence was justified given the post 9/11 challenges
facing Pakistan, how long is he going to continue with this charade of
democracy? If the General is indeed keen to serve his country, he should get
out of uniform and fight polls like any other politician without his army
paraphernalia Its time for real democracy in Pakistan.
M B Naqvi said that a clash between the people and a nondemocratic regime controlled and supported by the army, is a fearful
prospect, though it may not be eventually avoidable. If democracy has to
come, it will come despite tough resistance by the military-controlled
regime. The danger of bloodshed is thus implicit. But it is possible to
manage the polarization and avoid a direct physical clash between the two
sides. Remember the usual tricks of bureaucracy and the agencies they can
go on buying time until the point when others become exasperated and cry;
no more.
Masooda Bano opined, if a balance is to be struck between the
civilian and military power in Pakistan, then it is only possible through a
392

visionary leadership within the military that realizes the importance of

leaving the governance process to democratic forces. General Karamats
candid comments on the current military government are thus very
important. It is a reminder that it is possible to produce generals who believe
in importance of the civilian rule and that such thinking needs to be
encouraged within the military training institutions.
Dr Farrukh Saleem speculated about Musharrafs future in uniform.
The king has a standing offer for the queen: Come back, no cases against
you or your husband, lead your party through a free and fair election. If your
party wins, you cant be the prime minister, but any of your nominees could
be. The king, ideally, shall remain the king although the kings foreign
sponsors now want to dilute his monopoly on power; dilution not
derailment.
To be certain, Americas closest ally in Pakistan has long been the
Pak Army. Clearly, Bush wants to alter or amend Musharrafs conduct, and
so the arm-twisting. To say that America wants democracy in Pakistan is
hogwash but Musharraf is fast loosing support at the American think-tank
level (which could be critical in times to come).
Shafqat Mahmoud visualized early elections. The president has
himself acknowledged that his popularity is not what it used to be, There is
no way of knowing what makes him come to this conclusion considering
that he has never made himself available for a genuine test of public opinion.
But let us accept what he says. If his popularity is low now, is there any
chance at all that it will get any better between now and October 2007?
It is obvious that the graph of the government is heading south at the
speed of knots. Waiting to hold elections next year may be more
problematic than this October. An important factor is the role of the
opposition. With the charter gathering momentum and more and more
people signing up to it, the longer the time to elections, the more difficult it
will be for the general. It is a tough call, but a cold assessment of the
situation indicates that the government would be better off going in for
elections this year than the next year.
Ammara Durrani wrote about the already settled rift between CM
and MQM. A chief issue revolves around government job quotas and
their division amongst the coalition partners provincial Health Minister
had asked CM to lift the ban on recruitment, demanding a job quota of 45
percent for itself, and leaving 55 percent quota for the PML and its
provincial allies.
393

Another issue plaguing the provincial partnership revolves around

land acquisition and allotment, especially in Karachi and its vicinity.
Reportedly, MQM-led City Government had initiated an anti-encroachment
drive last month to demolish some old villages or goths in the city, terming
them as illegal.
Upon hue and cry in the Provincial Assembly against the razing of
these villages mostly populated with Sindhis, the CM put a stop to all
demolition work, saying no village would be touched without his
permission. MQM boycotted Assembly session on May 19.
Their absence sent a clear message to Islamabad that they were not
happy with their CM. In next session CM showed his strengthened
position in the assembly by fielding the Opposition without the help of his
coalition partners.
Unlike the past, the MQM was trumped this time by none other
than the PML chief and his top party men, who publicly declared their full
backing for the CM and his dealings with the MQM. The matter was
resolved after intervention by the president.
The MQM-nominated Governor decided to stay away from the
fray this time by flying out to London for a vacation, where he watched
the latest episode in the comfortable confines of party chief, Altaf Hussains
home It was no vacation; he actually moved to the control or nerve centre
of the MQM, from where Altaf Bhai has been dictating Musharraf Bhai on
various issues.
Lectured by General Musharraf and Prime Minister Aziz on the
importance of staying united in the current political climate lest efforts for
next years win become bogged down by petty rivalries, the two ill-at-ease
partners have agreed not to rock the boat for time being. Jobs and land
will remain MQMs interests for widening and strengthening its political
base and, therefore, the rift will resurface sooner or later.

Situation in Baluchistan improved, but remained far from being

stable. Following incidents of terrorism and actions of security forces were
reported:
By 28th May, about 100 people had been arrested over rocket attack in
Quetta. Next day, a minor girl was killed and five persons injured in a
blast in Machh and one person was killed in landmine blast in Sui.

394

 Seven persons were arrested in Quetta on 2nd June for supplying arms
and bomb-making material to tribesmen. Next day, gas pipeline in Pir
Koh was blown up and FC recovered two anti-tank mines from a
nullah in the same area.
On 6th June, terrorist blew up gas pipeline near Sui and railway track
near Dera Murad Jamali. Gas supply to Guddu Thermal Power Station
and Punjab were affected. At least four people were killed in two
incidents of firing and bomb blast in Dera Bugti and Panjgur districts.
Harnai-Sibi rail track was blown up on 7 th June. Two days later, at
least 11 people were wounded in a bomb blast in Hub.
Gas pipelines were blown up at three places near Quetta and Mastung
on 10th June. Police defused 14 bombs attached to electricity towers.
Four BLA activists were arrested in Machh on 11th June. Next day,
five people were killed and 17 wounded in a bicycle bomb blast in
Quetta and five more were killed in gun battle in Sangsila.
On 13th June, police arrested 22 suspected militants in a raid in Quetta.
Next day, security forces killed five terrorists and arrested seven in a
raid in Dera Bugti. Police arrested seven men involved in terrorist
activities in various raids in Bolan district.
Four paramilitary personnel were wounded in a blast in Qalat on 15 th
June. Security forces seized large quantity of arms and ammunition in
two raids in Dera Bugti area. Next day bombs exploded in Barkhan
and Harnai.
Musharraf and his team of enlightened moderates have stopped
talking about soft image; in fact, their so-called moderate pretence was
being exposed for the last many months. On 30 th May, Lahore High Court
asked the government to inform it of the reasons for detention of a nuclear
scientist Attiqur Rehman. His father in his petition said, they picked him up
two years ago and since then we do not know where he is detained and what
the charges against him are.
The same day, Ibrahim Paracha told journalists that those talking
about the inhuman treatment with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay would
forget the injustices if they come to know about the conditions in Pakistani
jails. He told about two Tajik children of 11 and 12 years who were picked
up from a madrassa in Waziristan and the family of an Egyptian who came
to Pakistan on proper work visa. Ibrahim Paracha also criticized Jihadi
395

organizations, which were collecting billions of rupees in the name of Jihad,

but adopted silence over the fate of such innocent victims.
Some of the incidents which caused bruises to the already not so
attractive image of Pakistan reported during the period were as under:
Oman deported 758 Pakistanis in a cargo ship on 9 th June. Some of the
deportees included sick people.
On 15th June, four policemen were killed and seven wounded in an
ambush in Karachi near Saddar. Next day, the death toll to six.
Blasphemer was stabbed in Muzaffargarh courts on 16th June. Shutterdown strike was observed in Hasilpur over blasphemy murder and
desecration of Quraan.
Meanwhile, the government remained determined to deal with
extremism firmly. The News urged the government to repeal or at least
amend Hudood laws, which according to the editor are one of Gen Ziaul
Haqs darkest legacies. These laws are discriminatory and misogynistic
and are flawed in several ways. The punishments prescribed are barbaric
and do not have any place in this day and age.
On 31st May, an anti-terror court in Multan sentenced LJ man to death.
Strangely, the government acted against its longing desire for the soft image
and banned film Da Vinci Code, despite the fact that the film was breaking
records in the civilized world. It also censored a textbook of English medium
schools.
Muhammad Riaz from Thana Malakand Agency wrote on the subject
which was ignored by the government and media. May 28 was Youm-eTakbeer, a national day of celebration, pride and festivity. It is the day
Pakistan became a nuclear power eight years ago. But the nation did not
celebrate it because the rulers did not on political grounds. Not one
organization arranged a function on this most important day nor was any
statement issued by the government.
Some who delivered long speeches on this during the previous
government declaring it a red-letter day are silent now. God has given us this
day for joy and pride but we did not celebrate it fearing that the present
rulers would become angry and hostile. It is not a minor crime to ignore this
day that ensured our survival. If I could afford a lawyer I would lodge a
case of high treason against those responsible.

396

The News criticized the government for censoring school textbook.

According to the editorial, banning of Urdu textbook being used by O-level
students was unfounded. The textbook in question, Pakistan Ki Kahanian
has been banned because it allegedly contains objectionable and
vulgar material.
Students who have been using the book (prescribed for study in class
IX and X) have said that the stories it contains actually help develop in
them an awareness of issues like rape, karo-kari, honour killings, swara,
child marriages and so on.
Those who study the censored textbooks are fed a doctored or
concocted version of the nations history and current affairs with little or no
reference to the dark or unpleasant side of things. The idea is to use such
textbooks to foster patriotism in the young generation. They hence grow
up developing a skewed worldview believing that their society/faith is the
best and all others are bad
What the ban does is prevent public opinion from being influenced
by increased awareness of such social ills. Public opinion, for its part, can be
a crucial catalyst for social change because of its ability to be a source of
pressure on the government to act against such practices. But the
governments prohibition, unwitting or otherwise, nullifies all that. The ban
must be overturned.
Influencing public opinion is something entirely different thing to
educating the tender minds. At that age it is better to focus on imparting the
noble/good things rather than the uglier aspects of their entity, because that
could lead to complexes, frustration and rebellion. Moreover, targeting O/A
level students for such awareness is not the right thing. It is similar to the
awareness about family planning wherein the poor who need the most
continue producing children. If there is really no other way to inculcate such
awareness, then the right place for such textbooks is the Urdu-medium
schools of remote areas which suffer from these social-ills.

CONCLUSION
There was a slight positive change in Pak-Afghan relations. Kabul
desisted, may be temporarily, from accusing Pakistan for cross border
terrorism. Pakistan showed some guts in refusing undue favours like
allowing Indo-Afghan transit trade.

397

Whereas, Pakistan was held from the collar and pulled to the US side
for invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, India has been requested to play
an extended role in occupied land. Pakistan remains busy doing thankless
errands; while India has been invited to join the holy feast.
The home-front has been comparatively quiet, but terrorism in
Baluchistan remained source of concern despite decrease in subversive
activities. Political analysts apprehended that Benazir could use Nawaz
Sharif just as Musharraf used MMA. Both are shrewd leaders therefore
turning back on deals cannot be ruled out.
The rulers have sacrificed a lot in seeking soft image, including
core issue and nuclear deterrence. Muhammad Riaz from Thana Malakand
Agency had complained about not celebrating Youm-e-Takbir. The patriots
like him should have celebrated it quietly as Youm-e-Tashkur for it was not
Musharraf who received telephone calls from White House on the eve of
nuclear weapons tests carried out in Chagai.
Musharraf, too, does not find himself in enviable position after
receiving that fateful telephone call and hurriedly jumping into the
mainstream. Today, he finds himself hanging to the hook held firmly by the
Crusaders. He can wriggle as hard as he can but cannot get off the hook.

20th June 2006

MAIN BATTLEGROUND
Middle East is the main battleground of the ongoing war where
Crusaders and their allies have launched three-pronged offensive. The main
offensive was launched more than three years ago in Mesopotamia, which
has been termed as quagmire by some analysts.
Herein the holy war had degenerated into an orgy of war crimes no
sooner than it started. During last three weeks another incident of random
killing took place when on 20th June fifteen workers of poultry farm were
killed, who were presumably involved in biological warfare by infecting the
chicks with bird flu virus. It is because of such incidents that Lt Ehren
Watada refused to fight Iraq War saying such fighting would make him
party to war crimes.
The second offensive had been launched about six decades ago
against Muslim Arabs. Since 1967 only the Palestinians have been bearing
398

the brunt of brutalities of the Jewish state. Perpetration of state terrorism has
gained momentum after democratic election of Hamas into power.
Third offensive is against which is yet at diplomatic phase. This could
not be moved into next phase of sanctions or military action because of overstretched resources and the worlds increasing criticism of Americas
unilateralism. Washington has decided to gain time by agreeing to direct
talks with Tehran.

IRAQI INFERO
Insurgency in Iraq continued. On 8th June, 13 people were killed
and 28 wounded in roadside bombing in the capital. A car bomb explosion
killed 7 and wounded 17 people. In another car bomb six people were killed
and 13 wounded. Five persons were killed elsewhere. The same day, US
forces announced that Zarqawi, along with 7 aides including his spiritual
leader Sheikh Abdul Rahman, was killed in precision bombing of an area in
Diyala province near its capital, Baqouba.
One civilian was killed and three soldiers wounded on 9 th June in
attack on troops guarding oil pipeline near Kirkuk. Three engineers were
killed near Baiji. Next day, two bombs aimed at police patrols exploded in
Baghdad despite the curfew; and in a series of attacks countrywide at least
24 people were killed.
A car bomb killed four people and wounded nine others in Baghdad
on 11 June. British troops claimed killing five men of Mehdi militia in
Amara. Two days later, at least 18 people were killed and 45 wounded in
five car bomb attacks in Kirkuk. Electronic media reported that in all 40
people were killed.
th

On 14th June, Iranian Consulate in Basra was attacked by protesters.

Two days later, at least 11 people were killed and 25 wounded in suicide
bombing in Shia mosque in Baghdad. Four people were killed in separate
attacks. One soldier was shot dead in Hawija and another near Kirkuk. Five
persons were killed in bomb blast in Baqouba. US military claimed killing
104 rebels and capturing 759 in massive operations launched since
Zarqawis death in which more than 55,000 troops were involved. Deputy
Justice Minister asked occupation forces not to hand over detainees to Iraqi
authorities as Iraqi prisons were overrun by abusive Shiite militiamen.

399

On 16th June, one US soldier was killed and two went missing in a
clash near Yusufiya. Next day, bombs and mortar fire killed at least 31
people and wounded 60 in three incidents in and around Baghdad. A car
bomb in Mahmudiya killed seven people.
On 18th June, US-led forces surrounded the town of Ramadi. Ten
people, including two Iranians were killed in different incidents. Two days
later, the US military killed 15 terrorist in Baqouba during raid on a poultry
farm on 20th June. Four persons were killed in shootouts. The US troops
killed nine people sleeping in the fields and detained ten others. Thirteen
dead bodies were found in Hushaheen near Baqouba. Dead bodies of two
missing US soldiers were found. Four US Marines were killed in roadside
bombing in Anbar province and another was killed in a separate incident.
Sixty-four people were kidnapped in mass.
On 21st June, gunmen kidnapped, tortured and killed Saddams
defence lawyer. Chief defence counsel called for stopping the trial and
transfer of defendants out of Iraq. Al-Qaeda threatened to kill Russian
hostages. Eight people were killed in area with mixed population of Kurds
and Sunni Arabs.
Two persons were killed in Baghdad on 22 nd June. At least 25 people
were reported killed in Mosul by gunmen in different incidents. Police
rescued 17 factory workers who were kidnapped a day earlier; dead bodies
of the remaining 13 were found around the factory area. Insurgents freed 30
people, mostly women and children, who were kidnapped two days ago; two
of them were shot dead when they tried to escape.
At least 12 people were killed and 20 others wounded in a bomb blast
outside a Sunni mosque in Baghdad on 23 rd June. Ten people were killed and
18 wounded in Basra and 12 were killed in Baqouba. One US Marine and
four militants were killed in a separate clash near the town.
On 25th June, insurgents announced that four kidnapped Russians were
executed. Next day, at least 30 people were killed in a bomb blast in Hilla.
Electronic media reported killing of 16 more people in other incidents. On
27th June, 22 people were killed and 40 wounded in motorcycle bomb blast
in a village near Baqouba. Another bomb blast in Hilla killed 10 persons and
wounded 79 others.
Ten people were killed in Baqouba in a spate of attacks on 28 th June.
Three people were killed and ten wounded in suicide bombing in Kirkuk and
three more, including a soldier, were shot dead in other incidents. Three
police officers were killed in roadside bombing near Baghdad. A US Marine,
400

a US soldier and another from multi-national force were killed is separate

attacks south of the capital.
The Crusaders remained determined staying the course. On 13
June, Bush paid surprise visit to Baghdad to shake hand with the chosen
new leader of Iraq. Even the host, Maliki, did not know about his visit. Bush
told the host, I have come not only look you in the eye; Ive also come to
tell you that when America gives its word, it keeps its word.
Four days later, Bush reiterated that he traveled to Baghdad to
personally show our Nations commitment to a free Iraq, because it is vital
for the Iraqi people to know with certainty that America will not abandon
them after we have come this far.
But, a leaked cable from the US Embassy in Baghdad painted a grim
picture of Iraq as a country disintegrating in which the real rulers are the
militias, and the central government counts for nothing. Obviously, the cable
did not mention the contribution of the occupation forces towards Iraqs
looming disintegration.
Meanwhile, prosecutor sought death penalty for Saddam on 19th June
and three days later, the defendant went on hunger strike in protest over
killing of his lawyer. Two US soldiers were charged with manslaughter and
Japan started pulling out troops from Iraq.
Noman Sattar mentioned Americas problems in staying the course. It
is assumed that al-Qaedas presence and activities are distinct from the
insurgency. Thus the US is confronting two faceless enemies
Notwithstanding the conspiracy theories about the US objectives in Iraq, the
situation it is facing there is hardly enviable.
Democratization process was the main justification for staying the
course. On 8th June, main Iraqi parties agreed that the Interior Ministry
would go to a Shiite and the Defence Ministry to a Sunni Arab. Mr Malikis
choice for the Defence Ministry, Gen. Abdul Qader Mohammed Jassim, was
relatively uncontroversial. But infighting among the Shiite parties, especially
obstruction by the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic
Revolution in Iraq, blocked agreement on a new interior minister. Khalilzad
predicted that next six months will be critical.
Two days later, Maliki said, we are at this juncture thanks to the
bravery of the soldiers, police and citizens who have paid the highest price
to give Iraq its freedom. Our national unity government will honour these

401

sacrifices by pushing an uncompromising agenda to deliver security and

services to the Iraqi people and to combat rampant corruption.
He added, to achieve this vision, it is necessary that Iraqs neighbours
not interfere in its internal matters. While some neighbouring countries
provided refuge for many Iraqis during the rule of the dictatorial Baathist
regime, this does not give them a right to meddle in Iraq now or turn a blind
eye to terrorists operations. He ignored the fact that giving refuge to many
Iraqis then, too, was meddling of its own kind.
On 19th June, Maliki announced that coalition troops would quit
southern province of Muthanna next month. The same day Browne visited
Baghdad to discuss equivalent plan for Basra. A week later, Maliki
announced national reconciliation plan.
Reconciliation plan was criticized by leaders from both sides of
sectarian divide. A Sunni leader said the plan had set no date for withdrawal
of US troops. However, seven minor Sunni Arab groups had reportedly
contacted the government to join in efforts at national reconciliation.
One big thing is amnesty. Insurgent groups are unlikely to agree to
lay down their arms without some assurances of amnesty for their fighters.
Yet the Iraqi government talks about denying amnesty to insurgents who
have killed other Iraqis, and Washington has insisted on excluding those who
have killed Americans. That is understandable on both counts, but it would
seem to leave few, if any, real insurgents eligible for any amnesty, the New
York Times wrote.
This newspaper also commented on Bushs visit to Baghdad. To
increase the drama on Bushs visit to Iraq, Mr Maliki announced a large
military and police operation around Baghdad, involving tens of thousands
of troops, to secure roads, stage raids, seize weapons and enforce curfew.
That may look good on paper, but so did the Mission Accomplished
banner. There are already 75,000 American and Iraqi troops deployed around
Baghdad, and very few of those Iraqis can actually carry out such a mission
reliably and effectively.
After too many photo-ops aimed at giving Mr Bush and his fellow
Republicans a short-term lift in the domestic opinion polls at election
time, Americans hunger more than ever for a realistic game plan for Iraq and
some real progress.
Gulf News said, allegedly, when US President George W Bush
visited Iraq for five hours on Tuesday, he gave the Iraqi Prime Minister

402

Nouri al-Maliki five minutes notice of his impending arrival. After

discussing the lack of trust shown in the host, the daily newspaper added,
Bushs Iraq visit may have done much to boost his popularity at home,
but will have done nothing to reassure Iraqis of the independence of their
new government.
Ehsan Ahrari wrote, during the European colonial era, political
upheavals in a colony affected the colonizing powers domestic politics.
Consequently, the leader of the colonial power maneuvered to improve his
domestic standing or improve his chances of staying in power by
influencing the domestic politics of that colony. That is what one was
reminded of when watching Bush hop on to Air Force One for the five-anda-half-hour visit.
His proffered reason was that he wanted to look Maliki in the eyes
and assure him that the United States stood with Iraq. One wonders why
Maliki would want to be seen in the company of Bush at a time when he
is desperately trying to build his own legitimacy. Bush, after all, is as
popular as the plague in Iraq.
In this technological age, Bush could just as easily have stagemanaged a video-conference session with his and Malikis cabinets at which
the Iraqis could have outlined what it was they needed and wanted from the
US. From a public relations angle, it could have been highly beneficial
Instead, the US president went to Iraq. He spoke of liberty in a country
where even he himself did not have the liberty to take a sneak peak at the
Iraqis struggling to stay alive.
As Bush was meeting with selected officials and with his own troops,
the insurgents issued a press release, aimed similarly at boosting the morale
of their Jihadis. Abu Hamza al-Muhajir was named as the successor to
Zarqawi.
Jim Hoagland opined that the assumption, that seemed to underline
the overly optimistic approach of the Bush team, that political resolve
alone can determine Iraqs fate. This is a particularly flawed emphasis
for an administration that has shown absolutely no talent in identifying,
aiding and sustaining durable political leadership for Iraq.
Staying the course was made difficult by opposing winds of the
critics of war. War crimes committed by the occupation forces remained
cause of criticism. Scott Ritter wrote, the fact is, every soldier, sailor,
airman and Marine in a theatre of combat is a potential bad apple if denied

403

the discipline and leadership necessary to maintain a certain standard of

conduct in conflict.
I know our fighting men and women have been properly trained
regarding the rules of war. The problem is leadership. And, to quote an old
Russian military saying: A fish stinks from its head. There is a leadership
deficit in the armed forces of the United States today, and it begins with the
commander in chief, President George W Bush, and his secretary of defence,
Donald Rumsfeld. It extends to the entire US Congress and onto the senior
leadership of the uniformed armed services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They were mute when the president and his secretary of defence
waived the Geneva Convention when it came to so-called terrorists and
unlawful combatants. They forgot that many who fought for the United
States during the American Revolution would be classified as terrorists or
unlawful combatants using the standards set forth by the Bush
Administration.
The sad fact is that American service members in Iraq are not
fighting a fight they can win. There is no standard for victory. They are
deployed for six months, a year, or more, to a theatre of operations that
President Bush has already acknowledged will only be resolved by the next
president. This means that those being dispatched to Iraq have only one
mission: to survive. This is not a mission statement conducive to sound
decision making and action. In fact, the soldiers were de-trained by the
leaders in moral, legal and other humane aspects essential to acquire moral
ascendancy over the adversary.
Criticism Haditha massacre continued. Kamran Shafi explained one of
the aspects behind the brutality of the US soldiers by quoting a BBC report.
And they were operating under disturbing circumstances. Kilo Companys
headquarters were three miles north of Haditha, at a vast dam across the
Euphrates. Four hundred men of the first Marine regiment were based in this
decaying rabbit warren. Conditions were so disgusting, many just moved
out. They set up these unofficial shacks alongside it. Conditions at the dam
have been described as feral. (Feral: 1. Wild, untamed; uncultivated.
Often of animals and plants that have run wild. 2. Of pertaining to or
resembling a wild beast; brutal, savage Shorter Oxford Dictionary).
You could see the conditions in which they lived. And they were
filthy. It was disgusting. There seemed to him to be no real discipline. The
fact that the officers had let conditions deteriorate to the level in which
where people living in such basic environment, that says something.
404

He added, so there you have it my friends: this is the way the soldiers
of the mightiest power on earth, whose just one battle group can destroy five
countries like Pakistan inside a few hours, live. If they live like beasts how
can they be expected not to act like beasts?
In an earlier article he had mentioned John Simpsons uncovering of
killings in Ishqiq. Exactly three days afterthe US military authorities in
Iraq announced that their investigations into the matter (launched three days
earlier, mark, as a result of his report) had shown there was no case against
their soldier, that the dead Iraqis had died due to the collapsed roof This
cover up was enough for BBC to keep quiet thereafter.
What happened? How come a report by none other than its foreign
affairs editor, a man of the stature of John Simpson himself, a report that
detailed the alleged horrific extra-judicial killing of eleven innocent people,
a report which had shaken the very foundations of the whole mad enterprise
of the assault and occupation of Iraq particularly as it came on the heels of
the Haditha massacre. How could a report of that magnitude die such a
quick and quiet death?
So what do we make of the very sudden, and unmourned, death of
this story at the hands of the BBC? Would a story on, say, honour killings in
Pakistan, disappear off the screens of the BBC after a simple announcement
by the Government of Pakistan? Certainly not the BBC would have
mounted a spirited and stout defence of itself and its correspondent, and as a
further kick in the GoPs teeth, run several more unsavory items on
Pakistan.
But lets leave the BBC as an organization out of it for a moment.
Might one ask John Simpson why he went down and out without a
fight Whoever is right or wrong, both John Simpson and the BBC owe us
an explanation.
He then referred to the song called Hadji Girl sung by a 23-year-old
Marine and wondered as why there arent more Hadithas and Ishqiqs, and
that this with this level of hate for the Iraqi people in the hearts of American
soldiers there probably are scores of Hadithas waiting to be uncovered.
He reproduced the lyrics. I grabbed her little sister and put her in
front of me , /As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between
her eyes, /And then I laughed maniacally. The singer, Marine corporal,
claimed that he sung it because it was funny.

405

This song was funny? Blowing a childs head apart is funny?

Whats the difference between a cold-hearted and psychopathic and cruel
killer such as the dead Zarqawi, and this young Marine? The difference was
that the former beheaded no child deliberately.
Praful Bidwai wrote, the atrocious ways of US troops have forced
even Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to say that their grave misconduct on a
daily basis has become common No respect for citizens, smashing
civilian cars and killing on a suspicion or a hunch. Its unacceptable.
Examples of atrocities by US troops, published in Time and
Newsweek, are numbing. The occupation troops emerge as unhinged,
mentally unstable, high on drugs, and prone to perverse behaviour
Those who believe these are aberrations dont understand the insanity that
sometimes sets in among soldiers who dont know why they are fighting.
How else can one explain the sickening sadism of the four-minute video,
called Hadji Girl?
George S Hismeh, however, opined that Haditha has not yet
acquired the status of My-Lai of Middle East. The unpopularity of war,
here and overseas, now fueled by the massacre in Haditha, has given
additional ammunition to the American opponents of the Bush
Administration for its continued failures in Iraq or Afghanistan, certainly it
unsuccessful effort to improve the American image in this strategic region
rich in oil reserves.
An interesting development has been the protests of the Iraqi prime
minister in the wake of these alleged US military atrocities, prompting him
to say that Iraq will want to undertake its own investigation The public
opposition to the war here has yet to reach the level that prompted the
American withdrawal from Vietnam.
Gary Younge wrote, let us leave aside for the moment that these are
just a few of the atrocities reported in Iraq, that there have almost certainly
been atrocities that havent come to light and that untold thousands of
Iraqi civilians have been killed by US forces in conditions considered
insufficiently atrocious to be worthy of investigation.
International law was broken but there will be no punishment. The
few who are responsible remain in the White House while the many who are
brutalized or murdered, or both. Youve got to do whatever it takes to get
home, said a marine. If it takes clearing by fire where theres civilians,
thats it. There is, of course, another option. Just go home. If the wanton
murder of civilians is what it takes to complete your mission, there is
406

clearly something wrong with the mission. You can only talk about a few
bad apples for so long before you need to take a serious look at the barrel.
Trial of Saddam is being pushed as cover up of the war crimes
committed by the Crusaders. Khaleej Times opined, this is becoming
dangerously predictable. Yet another lawyer associated with the trial of
Saddam Hussein has been killed. Khamis al-Obeidi was the third lawyer
of the defence team to be eliminated since the trial began last year.
Al-Obeidi is said to have been taken for questioning by uniformed
men from the notorious Interior Ministry. His bullet-ridden body was later
found in a Baghdad neighbourhood It should be clear by now to the US
and Iraqi authorities if it hasnt already that a free and fair trial of the
former president and his lieutenants is not possible in the conditions
prevailing in Iraq today.
The analysts kept commenting on Zarqawis elimination. Farooq
Sulehria said, from Saddam to Zarqawi, all were once Uncle Sams
adopted nephews. Even if he was not part of psyop, Zarqawi objectively
abetted the US occupation of Iraq. Alive or dead he does not matter, yet
Uncle Sam made use of his life as well as death. After all, Uncle Sam does
not adopt nephews for nothing. However, each time a nephew of Uncle Sam
is born or killed, the Muslim World gets brutalized.
Deepak Chopra reported, after US bombing killed the infamous
terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a newscast said that a sizeable percentage
of Sunni Muslims didnt believe that Mr al-Zarqawi ever existed they
believe he was an American invention used to cover up the murder of
Iraqi Sunnis.
The criticism logically ends up in drawing inferences of pullout of
foreign troops from Iraq. Jim Hoagland said that the administration
shares with anti-war critics who demand a specific deadline for withdrawing
US troops. Both sides seem to believe that Washington can engineer a
relatively neat, predictable outcome that responds above all to US actions.
But history suggests that the loss of control over events could drive
sudden, abrupt decisions that shape a more chaotic final outcome. The
air rushes out of war balloons quickly Iraq War was triggered by a
dictators suicidal bluff about weapons of mass destruction. Now it is the
Bush Administration that risks being caught in a trap of self-delusion.
The Washington Post wrote, the truth is that US generals in Iraq and
the new democratic Iraqi government share with politicians here a desire

407

for US troops gradually to diminish their presence. They share, too, an

understanding of what needs to be done for that to happen: continued
training of Iraqi soldiers and police; disarming of sectarian militias; better
provision of electricity and other daily necessities; and shaping the political
structure to guarantee every region a fair share of oil revenue. Given the dire
circumstances in Iraq today, if progress isnt made on those fronts, there may
be little that US troops will be able to contribute.
Al-Ahram Weekly wrote, the media has shown great interest in
Zarqawis killing and in the formation of what seems to be a national unity
government. Bush could have made the withdrawal look like a calculated
political move, a culmination strategy. But he didnt.
Internationally, the US has ample reason to pull out of Iraq. Iran is
defying US-Israeli policy in the region, Afghanistan is flaring up again, and
fundamentalists are running wild in Somalia, the Horn of Africa. Bush and
his aides are desperate to project an image of strength, but they are ignoring
matters of simple strategy. The US needs to free troops from Iraq. The US
imbroglio in Iraq is draining military resources and limiting its ability to
intervene effectively in other parts of the world. Bush doesnt have to bother
about the matters of strategy mentioned as long as Karzais, Allawis and
Malikis are available in Muslim World in plenty.
Is the US president being obstinate, or does he have some other
reason to stay? Is he just a man who cannot make up his mind or keep a
promise, as US Christian fundamentalists now claim? Perhaps not; perhaps
the vagueness of current US policy on Iraq is intentional. The US doesnt
mind reducing its troops in Iraq. US officials are not against that. What they
are against is a promise of full withdrawal because it was never the intention
to leave Iraq entirely.
The existence of foreign troops is essential. It makes a country
answerable to foreign powers. And it makes a patriotic government think
twice before pressing independence. Thats the future the US wants for Iraq.
The US wants to reduce troops in Iraq, but it doesnt want and independent
Iraq to be the reason. And unless the costs of staying become unbearable,
the US will remain in Iraq to make sure it isnt.
Nicholas Von Hoffman said the same thing; so you think the Bush
Administration is planning on leaving Iraq? Read on: The Chicago Tribune
reports, trucks shuttle building materials to and fro. Cranes, at least a dozen
of them, punch toward the sky. Concrete structures are beginning to take

408

form. At a time when most Iraqis enduring blackouts of up to 22 hours a day

the sky is flood-lighted by night so work can continue around the clock.
The Tribune says, that for security reasons, the new embassy is
being built entirely by imported labour. The contractor, first Kuwaiti
General Trading and Contracting Co, which was linked to human-trafficking
allegations by a Chicago Tribune investigation last year, has hired a
workforce of 900 mostly Asian workers who live on the site. In a land
where half the population is out of work
On the other hand, the latest is that the facilities for the 8,000 people
scheduled to work in the viceregal compound will be completed on time
next year. Doubtless the cooks, janitors and serving staff attending to the
Americans needs and comforts in the establishment, which is said to exceed
in luxury and appointments anything Saddam Hussein built for himself, will
not be Iraqis either.
Photographers attempting to get pictures of what the locals call
George Ws Palace are confined to using telephoto lenses on this, the
largest construction project undertaken by Iraqs American visitors
Nevertheless, we know much of what is going on in the place, where there
will soon be 21 buildings, 619 apartments with very fancy digs for the big
shots, restaurants, shops, gym facilities, a swimming pool, a food court, a
beauty salon, a movie theatre (we cant say its a multiplex) and, as the
Times of London reports, a swish club for evening functions.
USA Today has learned that the massive new embassy, being built
on the banks of the Tigris River, is designed to be entirely self-sufficient
and wont be dependent on Iraqs unreliable public utilities. Thus, there
will be no reason or excuse for any of the thousands of Americans working
in this space, which is about the size of eighty football fields, to share the
daily life experience of an Iraqi or even come in accidental contact with
one.
The New York Times advised staying the course. It said, pretending
things are better than they are will not make them so. America has some
very hard strategic choices pressing down on it in Iraq much more
complicated than whether to set an arbitrary target date for troop
withdrawal Should Washington continue to tolerate the operations of
Shiite militias and death squads or should it use American military power to
loosen their hold? Should the United States resign itself to slow-motion
ethnic cleansing in some mixed areas or try to stop it by pouring more
American troops into zones around Baghdad and Basra where the threat
409

seems most acute? Is it more urgent to convince Iraqs Arab neighbours that
they share a stake in Iraqi stability or to scare them off by proclaiming that
Americas larger goal in Iraq is to ratchet up the pressure for democratic
change in a neighbourhood almost universally ruled by authoritarians?
Criticism of Bush and Blair over illegal war continued. Omar
Wariach condensed the criticism of Blair and his successor quoting an
unnamed British MP. While criticizing TB (Tony Blair) on Iraq War and
discussing what promises his successor Browne, he said, Blair and Browne
are two cheeks of the same Ares.
But, India, the largest democracy in the world, however was an
exception. Praful Bidwai observed that Bush was going bullish in India.
He wondered as to why the Bushs popularity was on the rise in India, as
against the decline elsewhere in the world, including America, though the
reason was quite clear.
He wrote, according to the Washington-based Pew Research Centre,
which polled 17,000 people in 15 countries, 56 percent of Indians have a
favourable opinion of America. Worse, 56 percent also approve of
President George W Bush, whose ratings have fallen in his own country to
31 percent. It speaks of Hindu-majority Indias anti-Muslim sentiment.
America has not been wrong in choosing India as strategic partner. Indians
are more devout Crusaders than the Crusaders.
Over the past year, approval of the US has plummeted in every single
European country barring Britain India is worlds odd-man-out here.
Even worse, Indias support for the US-led global war on terrorism
(GWOT) stands at record 65 percent the worlds highest, and 13
percentage points greater than last year. India and Russia are the only two
countries in which the GWOT draws majority support. The reason behind
their support for the war on terror is that the war provides them free hand to
crush freedom movements in Chechnya and Kashmir.
The Iraq occupation is so unpopular that a global majority sees it as a
greater danger to world peace than Iran But in India, those who regard
the Iraq occupation as a threat to world peace are just 15 percent the
worlds lowest, and less than half the rating in the US (31 percent). A huge
59 percent believe US efforts to establish democracy in Iraq will succeed a
desperate hope not shared by Americans.
The support among Indians for this brutal occupation is unique
Despite over 100,000 civilian deaths, and increasingly intractable
insurgency, and discontent in the Arab World and beyond. Even Mr Bush
410

admits that he made mistakes in Iraq. The US neoconservatives are in

serious disarray. Francis Fukuyama of End-of-history fame has broken
ranks with them.
Even so, the pro-US sentiment is shocking. Not long ago, the same
elite ardently supported Non-Alignment and opposed American hegemony.
It justified Indias nuclear weapons as a means of countering US influence.
The same policy-makers and shapers have now become abjectly proAmerica. Indeed, their admiration for the American people (67 percent)
exceeds even their support for the US in general.
Scott Ritter noted three myths about Iraq. The myth of
sovereignty: Imagine the president of the United States flying to Russia,
China, England, France or just about any other nation on the planet, landing
at an airport on supposedly sovereign territory, being driven under heavy US
military protection to the US Embassy, and then with some five minutes
notification, summoning the highest elected official of the nation to the US
Embassy for a meeting. It would never happen, unless of course the nation
in question is Iraq, where Iraqi sovereignty continues to be hyped as a reality
when in fact it is as fictitious as any fairytale ever penned by the Brothers
Grimm.
The myth of Zarqawi: I have said all alongand no one likes a
loser. So when the word came that the notorious terrorist, Abu Musab alZarqawi, was killed by American military action, the president suddenly had
a good week and poll number adjusted slightly in his favour. However, the
facts cannot be rewritten, even by slavish American mainstream media.
Zarqawi was never anything more than a minor player in Iraq, a third-rate
Jordanian criminal whose exploits were hyped up by a Bush Administration
anxious to prove that the insurgency that was getting the best of America in
Iraq was foreign-grown and linked to the perpetrators of the 9/11 terror
attacks nonetheless.
The myth of WMD: Regardless of what Sen Rick Santorum and the
lunatic neo-conservative fringe want to think, no weapons of mass
destruction have been found in Iraq Santorum and his cronies in the rightwing media have been spouting nonsense about how Bush got it right all
along, that there were WMD in Iraq

ARROGANT ISRAEL

411

Tensions between Hamas and Fatah persisted. On 10th June Palestinian

gunmen clashed in Gaza Strip. Two days later, MPs belonging to Hamas
denounced referendum. On 13th June, Fatah gunmen torched Hamas offices
in West Bank. However, during next week the two groups moved close to a
negotiated settlement of differences.
Meanwhile, EU approved 100 million euro aid for Palestine. Two
days later, International Middle East mediating powers agreed on an aid
scheme for Palestinians that will bypass the Hamas-led government. On 22 nd
June, Olmert and Abbas met in Jordan informally; but perpetration of state
terrorism continued. Following incidents were reported:
On 9th June, Israel killed Jamal Abu Samhadana, head of the Popular
Resistance Committee in a raid in Gaza Strip. In all, 10 Palestinians,
including three children, were killed in air strikes and artillery firing,
and 20 others were wounded.
In response to Israeli attacks, Hamas formally ended 16-month-old
truce by firing rockets into Israeli territory on 10 th June. Zawahiri
appealed to Palestinians to reject recognition of Israel in referendum.
Next day, Israeli air strike killed two Palestinians in Gaza. Israeli
Prime Minister regretted beach killings.
On 13th June, nine Palestinians, including two members of Islamic
Jihad, were killed and 20 others wounded in two air strikes in Gaza.
At least 38 rockets were fired into Israeli territory from Gaza Strip.
An Israeli aircraft attacked a group of militants on Gaza-Israel border
on 15th June.
On 21st June, two Palestinians were killed and 13 wounded five of
them children, in Israeli air strike in Gaza Strip.
Two Palestinians were killed in attack on an Israeli border post in
which two Israeli soldiers were killed and one captured. Israeli
ordered its troops to move into Gaza Strip. Palestinian fighters
demanded release of their women and children in Israeli jails; Olmert
refused.
Abbas ordered hunt for kidnapped Israeli soldier. On 27th June,
thousands of Israeli troops moved to Gaza border for an offensive to
recover kidnapped Israeli soldier. Palestinians prepared for Israeli
invasion as Rice appealed for diplomacy.

412

 Next day, Israel launched ground offensive into the Gaza Strip and
established a base at a disused airport. Israeli warplanes flew over a
house of Syrian President.

The Crusaders unqualified support to the Jewish state was

the driving force behind perpetration of atrocities against Palestinians. While
commenting on the killings of a family on the beach, the News wrote,
Americas response was however disappointingly the same that it has
always been whenever Israel chooses to murder unarmed Palestinians. A
State Department spokesman said Israel has a right to defend itself
sheepishly adding: at the same time we encourage Israel to consider the
consequences of its actions. but does such a right include the use of naval
warships to attack a public beach? America had said that when even Olmert
had regretted the beach killings.
Jordan Times explained as to why Israel continues committing
atrocities against Palestinians. Because:
Israel can. When innocent Palestinian lives are lost, it is merely
regrettable to Washington.
There is not the political will in Europe to question the US over its
support for an illegal occupation. But there is political will in Europe
to punish Palestinians for exercising their democratic rights.
The West is not prepared to stand up to Israel, and the Arab World is
not prepared to stand up to the West or Israel.
Principles are for nitwits. Freedom and human dignity are futile
commodities and if one has them, another doesnt.
Everyone knows that the sword is mightier than the pen. Hamas
knows, so it has called off its truce. Israel knows. And so it will
continue.
Al-Ahram Weekly wrote, despite its rhetoric, the US doesnt want
the Palestinians to find a way out of this crisis Its only interest is to
foment Palestinian strife. President Abbas must know that. He became prime
minister thanks to US support, and yet it was US support that robbed him of
much of his domestic popularity. President Abbas knows that the Palestinian
public hates taking orders from the Americans.
Israel and the US are not interested in a peace deal with the
Palestinians. Anything they say about peace is lip service. Abbas had been

413

president for a whole year before Hamas came to power, and yet he wasnt
offered a peace deal. He wasnt offered anything, not even a perfunctory
meeting with Israeli leaders.
Nihal Singh wrote, Israel, of course, plays by its own rules, with
the United States traditionally endorsing whatever it desires, whether it
was in making a non-person of Yasser Arafat or endorsing the Wall further
cutting into occupied territory or in allowing Israel to keep major settlements
near Jerusalem or in the latest move simply to draw the countrys borders.
The recent killings of Palestinian civilians on the Gaza Strip, in
addition to the targeted killing of a senior Hamas leader, have raised the
temperature in Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. At least one wing of Hamas
has said it was no longer bound by the unofficial ceasefire that has largely
been observed by Hamas for more than a year Obviously such a situation
is untenable for long. Olmert is betting on the fact that with the prevailing
confusion on the Palestinian side and the American support he enjoys, he
will carry the day by leaving Palestinians with Bantustans.
The New York Times demanded nothing short of surrender from
Hamas. Temptation to walk away needs to be strongly resisted. As bad
as things are now, they can get a whole lot worse, and almost certainly will if
the outside world averts its attention. Already, rockets are raining down
again on innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians, inflaming passions on
both sides.
And when those passions explode, the deadly consequences wont
be limited to Israelis and Palestinians alone. They never have been in the
past, and are even less likely to be in a world of satellite television,
ubiquitous Internet access, multinational terrorism and increasingly longrange missiles.
Further, there is something very important that the outside world,
particularly the Arab and Islamic world, can do to help. It can make plain to
the Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority that if it means to
become the legitimate international voice of the Palestinian people, and a
true government in the community of nations, it will have to accept the
minimal international ground rules already in place. These include
renouncing terrorism, acknowledging Israels existence as a sovereign nation
and abiding by formal agreements previously signed by lawful Palestinian
negotiators.
Those are ground rules that have already been accepted by Egypt and
Jordan and by the Arab League as a whole in its 2002 Beirut peace initiative.
414

They need to be accepted by Hamas, but not as some kind of ideological

concession. Hamas must see them as an admission ticket to the real
world, a necessary rite of passage in the progression from a lawless
opposition to a lawful government.
Hamas has repeatedly heard this demand from the United States,
Europe and Israel, and has repeatedly ignored it, even when it has been
backed by halts in vitally needed economic assistance. Hearing it from Arab
and Islamic neighbours, in the form of friendly persuasion, would be harder
for Hamas to dismiss. It also could prove easier for Hamas to accommodate.
James J Zogby mentioned the bias of the US Congress. On June 6, a
bi-partisan group of members began to circulate for co-sponsorship a
resolution entitled, Condemning the Persecution of Palestinian
Christians by the Palestinian Authority. The bill, which now has 13 cosponsors, is nothing more than a malicious act of incitement.
While correctly noting that Palestinian society is in disarray and that
the percentage of Christians in Palestine has dropped significantly in the past
several decades, the congressmen proposing the legislation absolve the
repressive nature of Israels occupation policies and falsely accuse the
Palestinian National Authority.
The world body, the UN, has failed miserably to end miseries of
Palestinians for the last sixty years. Essa bin Mohammad al-Zadjali said,
despite the pathetic conditions prevailing in the occupied territories, the
United Nations appears to be very weak in handling the situation. The
world body has not taken any firm decision or position for settling the
problem between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Instead of playing the role of an impartial mediator, the UN has
always supported the Israeli side. Even if resolutions are passed against
Israel under pressure from some countries, they invariably remain on
paper The fact is that Israel does not adhere to the UN resolutions and rely
entirely on the support of the US within or outside the UN. No wonder, the
Palestinian people continue to suffer injustices and the Israeli enmity and
crimes on daily basis.
The Arabs, it seems, are watching the whole scenario pretty
much like a football match. Even the spectators of a football match support
either of the teams with much more enthusiasm than is evident in Arab
backing for the Palestinian causes.

415

We, therefore, call for a single Arab stance, which would be a source
of honour for the Arabs. Lamentably, the Arab support for the Palestinian
cause is limited to a handful of US dollars with periodical condemnations of
the Israeli enemy thrown in But now, even those condemnatory
statements seem to have stopped with the Arabs entrusting the Arab
League secretary-general with this task.
Disunity of Arabs in general and division within Palestinians in
particular is another factor contributing toward Israels arrogance. Los
Angelese Times observed that the Palestinians were at the verge of civil war.
A Palestinian civil war would be a geopolitical as well as a humanitarian
disaster. It would invite further military involvement by Israel, which drew
Palestinian ire Tuesday with an air strike on suspected militants in Gaza that
killed eight civilian bystanders. And it would increase support in Israel for
Prime Minister Ehud Olmerts suggestion that Israel unilaterally draw new
Israeli-Palestinian boundaries. Indirectly, the newspaper was coaxing
Israel to make hay as the sun shines.
But its equally simplistic to ignore the fact that the Palestinian cause
has been embraced sometimes sincerely, sometimes cynically by
millions of Arabs and Muslims. A bloodshed in the West Bank and Gaza
even a fractional one would have ominous echoes for the United States
elsewhere, including Iran and, yes, Iraq.
The New York Times rejected even the most hyped prisoners
document. The vehicle that Mr Abbas has seized upon to use as leverage
with Hamas is a proposal put together by Palestinian prisoners now serving
in Israeli jails The prisoners proposal is unacceptable even to dovish
Israelis, and, in its present form, can represent no more than an initial
bargaining position.
Palestinians have saddled themselves with a government that
endorses terrorism, refuses to recognize Israel implicitly or explicitly and
shuns any talk of a two-state solution. In this dark picture, Mr Abbass
embrace of the prisoners proposal, with all of its obvious problems, can
only be greeted as a welcome step in the right direction.
Differences had led to Abbass resort to threat of referendum. Gulf
News wrote, Abbas is running the risk of direct confrontation with the
democratically elected administration, which has refused to recognize
Israels right to exist. It is this refusal that has led to western countries
sanctioning the Palestinian state, driving its people to near starvation
Abbas is confident an overwhelming majority of the electorate will vote
416

yes in the referendum, thereby leading the way to negotiating statehood

terms with Israel.
Al-Ahram Weekly expressed similar views. Fatah and Hamas are on
a collusion course. Were the referendum not to happen, the consequences
could be grave. Yet if the referendum takes place, the loser is likely to be
sour and chaos will be inevitable. Thats the last thing the Palestinians or
their neighbours need or want. Only Israel would be pleased, for chaos
would give it opportunity to implement its unilateral plans
Duraid al-Baik said that Olmert was not concerned about Mahmoud
Abbass referendum on the prisoners document. And that the whole issue
was just a political manoeuvre between two rival parties that should have
no implications on Israels plan In his own way, Olmerts statement was
clear and sincere. In other words, he told the Palestinians that he has no
intention of giving peace a chance and would unabashedly appropriate
Palestinian land by drawing the borders on his own and killing whoever he
wants to without any remorse.
For many Arabs, it is still hard to digest how the world leaders can
tolerate a heart shattering crime such as the one committed by the Israelis
against a happy family in Gaza and refrain from calling it by its true name: a
cold-blooded crime Olmerts rhetoric about peace and realignment
plan of settlement should not deceive the world and the Palestinians who
will go in for the referendum to sanction the plan for peace and recognize
their right to live and swim peacefully off the beaches in Gaza, if not
weekly, then once a year.
The Hindu wrote, given the prospect of the people rejecting its thesis,
Hamas has cited constitutional principle to contend that a referendum will
undermine the mandate given to it in the parliamentary election. Hamas is
not without options. It could boycott the referendum or pass laws to
annul the vote. However, this Islamist movement would do well to do an indepth analysis of its long-term position.
John Pilger described the plight of Palestinian, particularly the
children. Gaza, now sealed like an open prison and terrorized by the sonic
boom of Israeli fighter aircraft, has a population of which almost half is
under 15. Dr Khalid Dahlan, a psychiatrist who heads a childrens
community healthy project, told me, the statistics I personally find
unbearable is that 99.4 percent of the children we studied suffer trauma
99.2 percent had their homes bombarded; 87.5 percent were exposed to tear

417

gas; 96.6 percent witnessed shooting; a third saw family members or

neighbours injured or killed.
These children suffer unrelenting nightmares and night terrors
and the dichotomy of having to cope with these conditions. On the one hand,
they dream about becoming doctors and nurses so they can help others; on
the other, this is then overtaken by an apocalyptic vision of themselves as the
next generation of suicide members.
That these children are now to be punished further may be beyond
human comprehension, but there is logic. Over the years, the Palestinians
have avoided falling into the abyss of an-all-out civil war, knowing this is
what the Israelis want. Destroying their elected government while
attempting to build a parallel administration around the collusive Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas, may well produce, as the Oxford academic
Karms Nabulsi wrote, is Hobbesian vision of an anarchic societyruled by
desperate militias, gangs, religious ideologues and broken into ethnic and
religious tribalism, and co-opted collaborationists. Look to the Iraq of
today: that is what (Ariel Sharon) had in store for us.
He concluded, the struggle in Palestine is an American war, waged
from Americas most heavily armed foreign military base, Israel. In the
West, we are conditioned not to think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in
those terms, just as we are conditioned to think of the Israelis as victims, not
illegal and brutal occupiers. This is not to underestimate the initiative of the
Israeli state, but without F-16s and Apaches and billions of American
taxpayers dollars, Israel would have made peace with the Palestinians long
ago.
Uri Avnery said, if President Bush wanted to deal with Iran by
bombing them back to Stone Agenow would be the time. With
everybody riveted to the World Cup, who would notice? The Israeli
government knows this well. In their fight against the Qassam rockets that
are landing in the town of Sderot, the Air Force has been given free rein.
Since the beginning of the 2006 World Cup, more than 20
Palestinians, including boys and girls, a pregnant woman, a doctor and
several paramedics have been killed. It seems that nobody in the world is
paying any attention. Why should they? After all, the World Cup is more
important.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
418

With the introduction of ploy of direct talks, the tension between Iran
and US was temporarily defused, but the West continued hurling
accusations. On 8th June, IAEA found Iran guilty of enriching uranium. Next
day Iran confirmed gearing up uranium enrichment.
On 10th June, Iran said it would offer counter-proposals after studying
the package. Tehran found that parts of the incentive package were
acceptable, but wanted some parts to be removed. China and Russia
rejected West view on Irans nuclear programme. Ahmeninejad once again
said there is need for inquiry into Holocaust.
Washington objected to Ahmedinejads presence at the SCO summit
and the decision to give Iran observer status. Statements of members of
Shanghai Cooperation Organization were taken as anti-US by the West.
Nejad warned the leaders at SCO summit to be wary of foreign
domineering powers.
On 18th June, Iran vowed to shun direct talks with US on Iraq. Next
day, Bush threatened that Iran would face sanctions if the offer is rejected.
Two days later, he said Iran was taking awful long time. Nejad said Tehran
will reply in August.
On 24th June, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that
Iran wanted to resume talks but without any preconditions. Next day, Iran
again threatened to use oil as weapon. Turkish Foreign Minister arrived in
Tehran with message from Turkish Prime Minister to cooperate with
international community over its nuclear programme. On 26th June,
Germany and UK wanted an early response from Iran on the package. EU
warned Iran over delaying tactics. Meanwhile, Khamenei ruled out nuclear
talks with US.
Media and analysts kept commenting on tensions over Irans nuclear
programme. Peter Brooks wrote on the oil weapon. Iran has two choices: It
can (a) simply restrict its own energy production; or (b) attack nearby energy
production or oil tankers/natural gas carriers Iran cutting off its own
oil/gas exports would be akin to cutting ones nose off to spite ones face.
Tehran could block flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. But this
ploy is also fraught with problems. Sure, Iran has the military capability to
attack unarmed shipping, maybe, even (temporarily) close the Strait of
Hormuz by scuttling a ship, but such actions wouldnt go unopposed.
Iran could temporarily wreak havoc in the Persian Gulf, using
sea-skimming, near super-sonic Chinese C-801/802 anti-ship cruise missiles

419

(and older Silkworm missiles), quiet Russian Kilo diesel and minisubmarines, stealthy mines and lethal, high-speed patrol boat swarm
tactics. But US naval power surface, subsurface and air would make fast
work of Irans misguided military efforts.
US willingness for direct talks with Iran was a major event which
drew the attention accordingly. The News wrote, in her offer of direct talks
with Tehran, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had said that
Washington retained the nuclear option. But it seems that Irans threat to
cut off oil supplies in the wake of any military action seems to have paid
off. One hopes that all sides will now pursue a diplomatic solution to end the
crisis and any US thought of using force will recede
Victor Davis Hanson asked, why did the United States suddenly
reverse course and agree to negotiate directly with the Iranians over their
development of a nuclear arsenal? He added, there are a few reasons.
Its an election year, and the Bush Administration knows the American
public is in no mood for even a hint of more hostilities in the Middle East.
After failing to talk sense to the Iranians, the embarrassed multilateral
Europeans want us to back up their dialogue. The Russians and Chinese
for both commercial and mischievous reasons have warned America
theyll stonewall at the UN unless we begin horse-trading with Irans
president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. And, finally, its always smart to allow a
loudmouth like Ahmedinejad enough public rope to hang himself. There
was no mention of the desire to seek an amicable solution.
Given these circumstances, why would the US and Iran ever face off
at the negotiating table? Because each thinks the breathing space works in its
own favour. Iran views talking with the US as a reprieve from the threat of a
military strike or at least American-inspired embargoes and sanctions at
the UN The US wants more time before a showdown
Warren Christopher, based on his experience of negotiating for release
of American hostages in 1979-81, gave some tips to deal with Iranians in
table-talks. One, ensure that you talk to the right person as the real power in
Iran does not rest in Nejad. Two, be prepared for outlandish demands like
Middle Eastern marketplaces. Three, while talking keep working for
imposition of tough sanctions.
The News wrote, with Moscow and Beijing once again making it
clear that they will not go along with sanctions, the US plan to present a
consensus before the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency has

420

all but collapsed keep in mind that sanctions are at the core of
Washingtons policy against Iran.
The editor went on to visualize the prospects of any positive outcome
of possible direct talks. Unless the basic question of double standards is
addressed, a viable solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is unlikely to be
found, even if Russia and China are somehow persuaded to join.
Pessimism prevailed because Crusaders evil designs remained in
place. Philip Stephens said, many non-aligned nations are asking
themselves whether the demarche is a genuine effort to secure a negotiated
end to the stand-off over Irans nuclear ambitions or simply a tactical
manoeuvre to blind the UN into supporting punitive sanctions My guess is
that it is a bit of both. Circumstances forced a volte-face in Washington. But
the success or otherwise of the new diplomatic effort will rest to a
significant degree on the judgment of others on Bushs motives.
Patrick Seale observed, Iran is a formidable military power, second
only to Israel in the Middle East Israel, in turn now that Iraq has been
smashed wants to consolidate its military dominance over the region, and be
in a position to reshape the regional order to suit its interests. To both
powers, therefore, Iran poses a strategic challenge.
Noam Chomsky wrote, theyre building the biggest embassy in the
world in Baghdad, which towers over everything; theyre building military
bases. Is that because they intend to get out and leave Iraq to itself? No. If
you are staying in Iraq you have to have a reason. Well, the reason will be
that you have to defend the world against Iran.
In a subsequent review, he added, today the standard claim is that
Iran has no need for nuclear power, and therefore must be pursuing a secret
weapons programme. For a major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear
energy is a wasteful use of resources, Henry Kissinger wrote in the
Washington Post last year.
He then referred to history of American bias against Iran. Thirty
years ago, however, when Kissinger was secretary of state for President
Gerald Ford, he held that introduction of nuclear power will both provide
for the growing needs of Irans growing economy and free remaining oil
reserves for export or conversion to petro-chemicals Last year Dafna
Linzer of the Washington Post asked Kissinger about his reversal of opinion.
Kissinger responded with his usual engaging frankness: They were an allied
country.

421

In 1976 the Ford administration endorsed Iranian plans to build a

massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of
plutonium and enriched uranium the two pathways to a nuclear bomb,
Linzer wrote. The top planners of Bush Administration, who are now
denouncing these programmes, were then in key national security posts:
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Iranians are surely not as willing as the West to discard history to the
rubbish heap. They know that the United States, along with its allies, has
been tormenting Iranians for more than 50 years, ever since a US-UK
military coup overthrew the parliamentary government and installed the
Shah
In the recent past European Union and Iran struck a bargain: Iran
would temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, and in turn Europe would
provide assurances that the United States and Israel would not attack Iran.
Under US pressure, Europe backed off, and Iran renewed its
enrichment programme.
Simon Tisdall said, Neocon ideologues in and around the Bush
Administration concluded that only internal popular insurrection,
encouraged from without, would topple Irans theocracy. Twelve months
on, there is little sign of that despite a destabilizing $75m US propaganda
offensive.
An unintended impact has been the initiation of discussion about
revival of Cold War. Jackson Diehi criticized the Crusaders for not dealing
with Russia firmly. In the past few weeks, however, the Western will to
stand up to Putin has crumbled. At a NATO ministerial meeting 10 days
ago, France and several other European governments rejected US talk of an
enhanced dialogue with Georgia or a membership action plan for Ukraine
even as Russian-backed demonstrations in the Ukrainian Cinema forced
NATO to withdraw US Marines who had deployed there for an exercise.
Putins strongest move was his agreement to participate in a pending
Western bid to freeze Irans nuclear program. In exchange for its support
Russia won the postponement of a UN Security Council resolution that
would have ordered an end to the program; it also delayed a looming rift
between Russia and the West over sanctions against Tehran.
Lynt Leverett wrote, as the world watches the political maneuvering
over restarting nuclear talks with Iran this time with American

422

participation few are paying attention to a broader strategic

competition that has started between the United States, Russia and China.
A senior Iranian diplomat told me this month that Iran can no longer
wait for the West, and Tehran is now looking for alternative investors. In
recent years, China has emerged as a potential large-scale partner. But while
China can provide capital, its state-owned energy companies are not much
more technically capable right now than Irans.
This is where Russia comes in. Although Russian energy companies
could not offer quite the same level of expertise as Western firms in the
complexities of managing Irans old reservoirs, they couldhelp the Islamic
Republic develop its newer oil finds and, more significantly, realize its huge
potential as a gas exporter.
Graham Allison wrote that despite US-Russian differences, Moscow
remains indispensable. For information on clandestine activities, however,
Russia is the indispensable nation. First, Russia is completing construction
of Irans first civilian nuclear reactor at Bushehr, giving it a working
relationship with Islamic Republics nuclear engineers. Second, in the mid1990s, Moscow negotiated an agreement to supply Iran with technology and
equipment for an enrichment facility which was eventually cancelled
under US pressure. Russian intelligence undoubtedly gleaned useful
information about the scope of Iranian needs in negotiating this deal.
Moreover, Russian arms sales have established connections between the two
militaries. Indeed, the Tor-M1 air defence systems that Iran bought from
Russia for $ 1.4 billion will be used to defend its nuclear sites.
President Bush should thus ask his friend President Putin for a
favour: Russian and US intelligence experts should be assigned to produce a
joint assessment of Irans nuclear programme. President Putin will extract a
price for Russias help in such an undertaking; one President Bush can
afford to pay.
Nicol Strack discussed the background of Iranian stand on the
issue. Since the Iraqi nuclear programme was not seen as a matter of
national pride for the Iraqis, but rather as a project concerning the interests
of the Iraqi leadership, nobody felt obligated to side with the Iraqi regime
and defend Iraqs right to pursue its own nuclear programme.
The Iranian leadership seems to have learned its lesson from the
Iraqi experience. During Ahmedinejads presidential election campaign in
June 2005, he publicly announced: Acquiring peaceful nuclear technology

423

is the demand of the whole Iranian nation, and the rulers as representatives
of the people must put all their efforts into realizing the demand.
As a result of selling the nuclear programme as a matter of national
pride, the Iranian government is facing a dilemma on both counts. On the
one hand, it restrained the US and EU policies of making the nuclear
programme an issue of nationalism, linking it to Israel and mobilizing
people all over the world to support Tehran.
On the other hand, the same policy now makes it difficult for the
Iranian leadership to adopt a flexible position in a crisis and find a possible
solution in order to prevent a UN Security Council resolution imposing
sanctions on Iran.
Gulf News wasnt happy over OICs support for Iran expressed in
urging peaceful resolution of nuclear issue. So far Tehran has indicated it
rejects pre-conditions. So have Muslim countries at their meeting in Baku.
We express our conviction that the only way to resolve Irans nuclear issue
is to resume negotiations without any pre-conditions, OIC members said in
the Baku Declaration. However, Iran has yet to formally spell-out its
position. The ambiguity and time-buying tactics on both sides only
prolong the tension.

CONCLUSION
Elimination of the monster called Zarqawi and formation of Iraqi
government, apparently, made no positive impact on the security
environment of the occupied country. As visualized by the analysts, the
bloodshed in Iraq would continue, to the liking of the Crusaders.
Israel continued with its policy targeted-killings. The accuracy with
which Israelis have been targeting moving targets speaks of timely
intelligence gathered by them. It leads one to believe that they get certain
cooperation in this context from within Palestinian people.
On the other hand, Abbas ordered hunt for kidnapped Israeli soldier,
but one never heard of such hunt for a Palestinian kidnapped by Israelis. The
incident of kidnapping has put pro-West Abbas in difficult situation and at
the same time provided a fresh pretext to Israel for perpetration of state
terrorism.
The decision of Bush Administration to have direct talks with
regime in Tehran has provided temporary respite to Iran. It will try to

424

prolong the period of respite by taking time to deliberate on the package, but
it cannot last for ever.

29th June 2006

GLOBAL CRUSADES II
Away from the main battleground, the Crusaders focused on some
other countries during the period. The countries, which drew attention for
different reasons, were East Timor, North Korea, Somalia and Sudan. The
emerging SCO and growing strength of China were also not ignored.
The leaders attending the Conference on Cooperation and Confidence
Building Measures in Asia held in Almaty condemned terrorism in all forms
and called for fighting it in a consistent and comprehensive manner to avoid

425

double standards. They stressed that terrorism cannot be and should not be
associated with any religion, nationality, civilization and ethnic group.
Europe, Australia and Canada led by America, continued tackling
Islamic extremism in their respective domains. Bush Administration,
however, was subjected to criticism on account of the conduct of war on
terror.
The popular sentiment in Muslim countries continued growing against
the Crusades waged in the garb of war on terror. Ruling elites in these
countries, however, failed to recover from the trauma caused by the horrors
of ongoing war. They generally remained deaf and dumb.

AFRO-ASIA
The intensity of war on terror in Far East remained low. In
Philippines, a bomb killed six people in southern area on 22nd June. During
first week of July the rebels ordered stand down after six-day sporadic
fighting in the south. Prime Minister of Thailand agreed to a peace plan
worked out by a high-level panel for the restive Muslim region.
On 6th June, defence minister of Indonesia warned visiting Rumsfeld
over the fallout from the countrys actions as it pursues its so-called war on
terror. About a week later, Abu Bakar Bashir was released to which Australia
reacted strongly. On 3rd July, Bashir said Indonesia should send fighters to
support Palestinians.
In East Timor, residents of Dili started leaving the capital during first
week of June as the situation remained tense. On 16 th June, rebels
surrendered to peacekeepers. On 30th June, US diplomat asked Bangladesh
to guard against any threat to democratic credentials. Meanwhile, Pakistaniborn architect, Faheem Khalid was convicted in Australia of terror charges.
Commenting on the security of the region, Ralph Cossa asked, are
the United States and East Asia ready for the creation of a Pax Asia Pacific
as a logical successor to the Pax Americana, which has provided peace and
stability in the Asia-Pacific region for decades? This question was foremost
on former Philippine President Fidel Ramos mind when he lectured on USChina and East Asia Relations recently in Washington.
His remarks focused on the geopolitical realities of a rising China, a
more self-confident and involved Japan, an emerging India and a
preoccupied US. The time has come, he said, not to replace or discount
426

the American role in East Asia but rather to share the burden in hopes of
creating a more cohesive Asia-Pacific community.
Ramos addressed a wide range of issues during a free-wheeling
question session and stayed on after the speech to shake hands and pose for
pictures with nearly every one of the many Filipinos and Filipino-Americans
in the audience. It is easy to understand why many today wish he would run
again for president. Absent that, todays leadership, in Manila, in
Washington and Beijing, and in other East Asia capitals, would benefit
greatly by listening to his wise counsel.
East Timor kept drawing the attention of the analysts. John Aglionby
wrote, international aid agencies estimated 40 camps, holding almost
100,000 of Dilis terrified residents, have sprouted in the last few weeks,
posing both a potential humanitarian crisis and security nightmare
considering their vulnerability to attack.
The Australian prime minister, John Howard, has no doubts as to who
is to blame for the carnage. It came to this path because of poor governance,
and the responsibility is on the political leaders of that country, he said
at the weekend in an unusually frank criticism of a neighbouring nations
rulers. And I have a right as prime minister of Australia, given the
commitment we have made, to say to the political leadership it carries a very
heavy responsibility, and its in their hands to deliver a better future for their
people.
John Pilger said in early nineties, Australian and Indonesian foreign
ministers toasted each other in champagne onboard an aircraft in
celebration of truly uniquely historical Timor Gap Treaty which allowed
Australia to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the seabed off East
Timor Professor Roger Clark, a world authority on the law of the sea said,
it is like acquiring stuff from a thiefthe fact is that they have neither
historical, nor legal, nor moral claim to East Timor and its resources.
These days Australia likes to present itself as a helpful, generous
neighbour of East Timor, after public opinion forced the government of John
Howard to lead a UN peacekeeping force six years ago In regional
elections last year, 80 percent of votes went to Fretilin, led by Prime
Minister Mari Alkatiri, a convinced economic nationalist, who opposes
privatization and interference by the World Bank. A secular Muslim in
largely Roman Catholic country, he is, above all, an anti-imperialist who has
stood up to the bullying demands of the Howard government for an
undue share of the oil and gas spoils of the Timor Gap.
427

On May 7, Alkatiri described the riots as an attempted coup and said

that foreigners and outsiders were trying to divide the nation. A leaked
Australian Defence Force document has since revealed that Australias first
objective in East Timor is to seek access for the Australian military so
that it can exercise influence over East Timors decision-making Paul
Kelly, a former editor-in-chief of Rupert Murdochs Australian, wrote: This
is a highly political intervention Australia is operating as a regional power
or a political hegemon that shapes security and political outcomes.
In Mainland Asia also experienced considerable calm. Russia
warned US on moves in ex-Soviet states, but Putin played down differences
with America. However, on 16th June he termed the US military presence in
Central Asia as bull in China shop. Chechen rebel commander Abdul
Karim Saidullayev was killed in an encounter with forces on 17 th June. At
SCO summit the president of Uzbekistan, Karimov warned against outside
interference in countries political systems.
In the wake of the news that North Korea intended missile test, a US
warship successfully shot down a target over the Pacific in a test of a seabased defence system. North Korea broke the lull by test firing seven
ballistic missiles on 4th July. UN Security Council immediately reacted and
mulled imposition of sanctions on North Korea.
The test-firing of missiles did not come as surprise. Two weeks prior
to test-firing, the New York Times had written that just as all the attention
Iran has been getting as a result of Tehrans nuclear bad behaviour, North
Korea craves a spotlight of its own. Maybe Pyongyang, which hasnt
tested such a long-range missile in eight years, wants to see its new, more
advanced model actually works.
Washington, for its part, has reacted sensibly, not wasting lot of time
on diplomatic rigmarole and delivering instead a clear and direct message to
North Korea not to proceed with a missile test. We hope that North Koreas
next surprise is to respond equally sensibly and cancel whatever plans it
has for such a self-destructive move.
John Getting said it would amount to tweaking the tail of the US
(Mao Zedong used to call it touching the tigers buttocks) is not a sensible
policy In the face of overwhelming US nuclear retaliatory might, actually
to undertake such a venture would be writing the ticket for self-annihilation.
Only US can tweak the tails of rogues; whereas allies willingly shove their
heads into the jaws of the tiger.

428

Ashton B Carter and William J Perry advocated pre-emption.

Intervening before mortal threats to US security can develop is surely a
prudent policy This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise
missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. This
blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab alZarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating.
Waiting until North Koreas ICBM is launched to interdict it is risky.
First, by the time the payload was intercepted, North Korean engineers
would already have obtained much of the precious flight test data they are
seeking, which they could to make a whole arsenal of missiles Second, the
US defence interceptor could reach the target only if it was flying on a test
trajectory that took it into the range of the US defence system. Third, the US
system is unproven against North Korean missiles and has had an uneven
record in its flight tests. A failed attempt at interception could undermine
whatever deterrent value our missile defence may have.
David Isenberg ridiculed the idea of interception. No one has actually
seen the missile. Even how many stages the mystery missile has is
unknown But, by far, the most laughable news is the US government
announcement that it is activating its missile defence system. This, no doubt,
is causing the North Korean leaders to shake-in fits of laughter. One can
only imagine some flunky saying, Good news, Dear Leader: the American
imperialists have activated their missile defence system. Now we can
launch.
As most people have learned in the 20-plus years since the late
president Ronal Reagan announced his Strategic Defence Initiative in 1983,
shooting down an incoming ICBM even under the best of conditions is a
daunting challenge.
The New York Times suggested, what would be better still would be
for the White House to heed yesterdays call by Senior Republicans on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee for direct talks with North Korea on
the issue.
Washington needs to keep two goals in sight. The first, obviously,
is to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons and long-range
missile programs. The second is to make sure that neither Pyongyangs
feints nor Washingtons responses touch off a nuclear arms race in Northeast
Asia.
Apart from North Korea, two other issues, SCO meeting and military
prowess of China, were debated during the period. Doug Bandow wrote,
429

China critics routinely overstate Chinese capabilities and misstate US

interests. For instance, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently
suggested that since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this
growing investment and why these continuing large and expanding arms
purchases?
In fact, that question would be better asked by Chinese officials to
Secretary Rumsfeld. Americas increase in military outlays over the last
few years alone equals Chinas entire defence budget The Chinese
threat is primarily a threat to the American empire, not the American
republic.
The Washington Times attempted at demonizing China over
weapons trade. Chinese arms deals often involve an exchange of weapons
for raw materials, Amnesty International notes, and have included sending
weapons to Iran for oil and bartering arms for timber from Charles Taylors
murderous regime in Liberia.
China supplies Sudan with helicopters and military trucks, which
Amnesty International has documented as often being used by the Sudanese
army and the Janjaweed militias in Darfur. China regularly supplies the
military junta in Myanmar with vehicles, including tanks and artillery, such
as anti-aircraft guns.
And while the United States and India responded to King
Gyanendras assumption of power in Nepal by cutting off military assistance
to his army, China continued to sell the Nepalese army vehicles and other
military hardware. The army clashed for weeks with pro-democracy
demonstrators in Katmandu. Gradually, China is being portrayed as sponsor
of terrorism.
The analysts continued commenting on the recent summit meeting of
SCO countries. Sudhra Ramachandaran wrote, Delhi clearly does not want
to be seen to be an enthusiastic partner in a bloc that Washington sees as
anti-US. Not when the nuclear deal is just months away from being put
before the US Congress for its approval.
Nasim Zehra said, in the coming years the role of the two main
countries India and Japan will be decisive. India, although having
tactically given a cold shoulder to the SCO, has lobbied hard for observer
status. It is now seeking full membership. China has continuously sought
normalization of its ties with Japan.

430

Gulf News was of the view that energy-starved Islamabad and

Kabul have little choice but to be there, given their emerging links with
fuel-rich Central Asian states who form the core of the regional grouping.
But heres the nub. Will they join as fully paid-up members, adding to a
growing list of countries increasingly uneasy over US unilateralism?
Already China and Russia, the more powerful SCO members, would
like to fashion the former Soviet satellite states into a counterweight to the
US. In fact, Irans presence in Shanghai, albeit as an observer, not only
brought Tehrans looming confrontation with Washington to centre stage;
Iranian leader Ahmedinejads remarks calling for increased cooperation to
ward off the threat of domineering powers are the very sub-text of the SCO.
The Sino-Russian axis wants to recruit more muscle for its cause.
Patrick Seale wrote, having ruled supreme since the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991, the US is now confronted with formidable
competition from a group of states who openly proclaim that the world is
no longer uni-polar, but multi-polar.
Five years old and increasingly assertive, the SCO is beginning to
challenge Americas hegemony and nowhere more so than in the AsiaPacific region. The very existence of the SCO is, in fact, a striking
illustration of the change taking place in the international balance of power.
Several lessons can be drawn from the Shingai meeting. First, it
demonstrated that Iran has powerful friends, who will help it resist American
attempts to bring about regime change in Tehran Secondly, it showed
that Russia and China were joining forces to protect their common interests
in Central Asia. These interests include keeping the US out, combating
violent jihadi movements and gaining some control over the energy
resources of the region.
A third lesson of this years annual meeting, and indeed of the ones
which preceded it, is that Russia is determined to ensure the security of its
southern flank of what it calls its near abroad by bringing back into its orbit
Central Asian republics which the United States had sought to co-opt after
the Soviet collapse.
Jordan Times saw no need to fear. Moscow and Beijing are natural
competitors for influence in the region. Over time, their differences will
become manifest and prevent the SCO from emerging as a coherent
organization to counter the West. These differences are especially clear
when it comes to energy politics.

431

The Middle East remained comparatively quiet. In Saudi Arabia

six alleged members of the al-Qaeda terror network and a policeman were
killed in a shoot-out in Riyadh on 23rd June. Saad Hariri in his interview to
Der Spiegel accused President of Syria of killing his father.
In Kuwait Islamist-led opposition gained parliamentary majority in
elections. No woman won a seat. They could only add spice to Kuwaiti
polls but failed to make curry for themselves. In Egypt, AFP identified
another threat to the values of the West in actress Hanan Turk, who termed
Iranian cinema as role model and donned the Islamic headscarf.
In Turkey, three persons were killed and 25 wounded in an explosion
at a tourist resort on 25th June. The Hindu, however, focused on a different
issue. Close on the heels of the trial of Orhan Pamuk, the celebrated Turkish
writer, another writer, Perham Magden, is standing trial in Istanbul for
alienating people from military service Close to 60 writers are
currently on trial in Turkey for expressing views which are not popular
with the state.
Clearly, the assault on freedom of expression stemming from the
criminalization of free speech abodes ill for strengthening democratic values
in a nation seeking to modernize. The violence and intimidation from
intolerant groups that threaten these writers even within courtrooms leaves
one to wonder about the efficacy of the rule of law in these societies. The
language used is worthy of a strategic partner of the Crusaders.
The Crusaders had some worries about developments in Africa.
Kidnappers in Nigeria freed two British oil workers on 4th June after
keeping them for two days in captivity; four British, one Canadian and one
American were retained. On 26th June, security forces killed 19 militants in
attacks on the mountainous hideouts in Algeria.
On 5th June, Islamic militia in Somalia claimed victory over USbacked warlords and prepared to take over Mogadishu. Next day, after
winning the battle for control of Mogadishu, Islamic militia pushed north to
take more strategic territory.
Soon after military gains of Islamist fighters, Bush declared that
Somalia could become another Afghanistan. Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, the
chairman of the Islamic Courts told US to stay away. If US forces intervene
directly against us in Mogadishu, then we are ready to teach them a lesson
they will never forget and repeat their defeat in 1993. We are not terrorists
We have no link to those being pursued by America, which is the biggest

432

terrorist nation in the world despite its calls for democracy and respect for
noble human values.
Somali warlords were reported reinforcing the defences, but by 14 th
June, Islamic militia captured the town of Jowhar, the last stronghold of a
US-backed warlord. Three days later, Ethiopian troops intruded into
Somalia. Reuters acknowledged that Islamists have brought peace to
Mogadishu, but pointed out a new worry, though not so new, the possibility
of practice of Islamic values and Sharia law.
On 19th June, Islamist militia imposed Sharia law in Jowhar town,
while UN warned that conflict could trigger refugee crisis. Sudan and the
Arab League prepared to hold talks in Khartoum to ward off further chaos in
Somalia. On 23rd June a deal between government and Islamic militia
defused the tensions. The same day, a Swedish photographer was killed in
Mogadishu.
On 25th June, Islamists appointed Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweis, on
wanted-list of US, as head of their new parliament. The new leader vowed
enforcement of Sharia law. Osama warned US against sending troops to
Somalia. Islamist leader, Sheikh Hassan Dahir, however, denied affiliation
with Osama. On 5th July, at least two people were killed when Islamic
gunmen opened fire on demonstrators in central Somalia protesting a ban on
World Cup viewing.
The Crusaders were perturbed by the victory of Islamic groups. The
New York Times wrote, the immediate concern among many Somalis is a
forcible imposition of harsh Islamic law, Taliban style. The larger
international concern is that Mogadishus new rulers may follow the
Talibans example in another way, sheltering international terrorist
operations in a region within tempting striking distance of vulnerable
countries on the Arabian Peninsula and in East Africa.
For want of better options, the United States had thrown its support
to a different set of warlords with few visible merits beyond their
willingness to fight their Islamists rivals. But by some accounts,
Washingtons support for these warlords only discredited them in the
eyes of many Somalis.
With good luck, perhaps, a new battlefront with international
terrorism may yet be avoided. Luck, however, is no substitute for a more
supple and effective American strategy against a highly mobile foe like
multinational Islamist terrorism. Washington needs to develop more agile

433

responses of its own. It especially has to avoid getting drawn into

quagmires that force it to fight on the terrorists terms and timetable.
John Prendergast said, now our warlords and by extension our
counter-terrorism strategy have been dealt a crushing defeat by the
Islamists, as the latter have consolidated control of Mogadishu. Our shortterm interest in locating al-Qaeda suspects has thus been undermined, and
the risk of new safe haven being created for international terrorists has
been greatly increased.
It was partly from Somali soil that al-Qaeda organized and carried
out two serious terrorist attacks, in Kenya and Tanzania, against US
embassies and a foreign-owned hotel, and narrowly missed bringing down
an Israeli passenger jet with two surface-to-air missiles Somalia is an alQaeda recruiters dream with rampant unemployment, travel restrictions,
and no government or foreign investment and young Somalis will turn to
terrorism for money and, occasionally, because of shared ideology.
The US counter-terrorism approach in Somalia isnt working.
The al-Qaeda leaders sought by the United States there remain at large, and
the Islamists who protect them are gaining ground against US-backed
militias, as this weeks events show.
The Washington Post feared that Somalia was ready for
Talibanization. Bush Administration officials have not ruled out talks with
the Islamists; they point to a conciliatory letter released by Mr Ahmed,
which denied support for terrorists and said the Courts did not wish to be an
enemy of the United States. Somalias fragile transitional government,
which is based in the city of Baidoa, also expressed interest in negotiating
with Mogadishus new rulers.
That may offer the United States and African nations the opportunity
to promote a political process that, over time, could secure the country while
eliminating foreign terrorists; Western aid for reconstruction would need to
be part of the package. But the Islamists, too, should be reminded of the
Afghan example: In addition to offering dialogue and renewed US
engagement. President Bush should make clear that his administration wont
tolerate a regime that harbours al-Qaeda.
Even the News was concerned about Islamists emergence in Somalia.
Its bad news that religious extremist militias seized Mogadishu early last
week, overthrowing a coalition of Somalias warlords the takeover of
Somali capital by the militia is a matter of concern because they hold a

434

very rigid view of religion and are not hesitant to impose it on all and sundry
via so-called religious courts.
Al-Ahram Weekly foresaw Somalia as the next stop of the Crusaders.
Somalia is the next candidate for foreign intervention. A report by the
UN secretary general speaks of illegal arms smuggling by another state in
the vicinity, perhaps Ethiopia. Famine is spreading across southern Somalia
and parts of Kenya. And as if that is not enough, the US is telling us that alQaeda may have infiltrated the country. Ethiopia has silent support of the
Crusaders.
Rob Crilly wrote that Somali leaders say there is no need to invite
peacekeepers when Islamic militias have succeeded in pacifying
Mogadishu, one of the most dangerous cities on the planet. They dont
realize that the Crusaders intervene only when there is some peace and order
in an Islamic country as was the case of Afghanistan where Taliban had
restored peace and Saddam, despite his cruel ways, had done in Iraq.
Any sort of AU intervention which would most likely be a cover
for Ethiopian intervention is most likely to be highly divisive and is
likely to derail any attempt at peaceful negotiation between the government
and the Courts, said Sulieman Baldo, Africa programme director of the
Brussels-based International Crisis Group.
The analyst had already mentioned the real reason of the intended
intervention. Regional powers (Christian) support intervention out of fear
of an Islamic state on their doorsteps, while western governments are
worried the country could become a haven for terrorists.
Khaleej Times said, as was the case with Taliban in Afghanistan, ICU
is getting public support because it is seeking to fill a dangerous security
and political vacuum, created by the constantly fighting warlords and
ineffective interim government holed up in Baidoa, a town 250km away
from Mogadishu. It added, International aid, sent for the poor and needy,
has ended up in the pockets of warlords and corrupt leaders. Lets hope that
the international conference held yesterday will lead to meaningful steps in
restoring peace and stability in Somalia.
Andrew Cawthorne hoped for the best. The unusual calm they have
brought to war-weary Mogadishu is a fragile one The Islamists are not
homogenous and more radical members biting their tongues may become
prominent again. Divisions among the new rulers could emerge now their
common enemy is defeated. He mentioned differences between ICU

435

chairman Sheikh Sharif Ahmed and leader of the more radical Ayr clan,
Sheikh Yusuf Indahbde, of the southern Merca region.
Sudan suspended the work of all UN missions in Darfur on 25 th June.
The differences with the world body and Sudanese government persisted as
the former was being pressed by the Crusaders for deployment of
peacekeepers. On 4th July, at least 12 people were killed in a clash sparked
by rebels attack in a town in Darfur.
Sara Flounders mentioned the dirty US role in Darfur. Again and
again it is said that something must be done. Humanitarian and US
peacekeepers must be deployed immediately to stop ethnic cleansing. UN
troops or NATO forces must be used to stop genocide. The US government
has a moral responsibility to prevent another Holocaust.
Who is behind the campaign and what actions are they calling for?
A Jerusalem Post article of April 27 headlined US Jews Leading Darfur
Rally Planning described the role of prominent Zionist organizations in
organizing the April 30 rally. A full-page ad for the rally in the New York
Times was signed by a number of Jewish organizations, including the UJA,
Federation of NY and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
But it wasnt just Zionist groups that called for it. The rally was
sponsored by a coalition of 164 organizations that included the National
Association of Evangelicals, the World Evangelical Alliance and other
religious groups that have been the strongest supporters of the Bush
Administrations invasion of Iraq.
This was hardly an anti-war or social justice rally. The organizers
had personal meeting with President George W Bush just before the rally.
He told them: I welcome your participation. And I want to thank the
organizers for being here.
Despite sparse numbers, it got wide media coverage, focusing on
celebrity speakers The corporate media gave this rally more prominence
than either the anti-war rally of 300,000 in New York City on the day before
of the million-fold demonstrations across the country for immigrants rights
on the day after.
The Holocaust Museum in Washington issued a genocide alert the
first such alert ever issued and 35 Evangelical Christian leaders signed a
letter urging President Bush to send troops to stop genocide in Darfur. She
recalled the start of campaign against Sudan immediately after the illegal
invasion of Iraq based on lies. The same media that had given credibility

436

to the US governments claim that it was justified in invading Iraq because

that country had weapons of mass destruction switched gears to report on
war crimes by Arab forces in Sudan.
This Darfur campaign accomplished several goals of US
imperialist policy. It further demonizes Arab and Muslim people. It diverts
attention from the human rights catastrophe caused by the brutal US war and
occupation of Iraq, which killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis It is also an attempt to deflect attention from the US financing and
support of Israels war on the Palestinian people. Most important, it opens a
new front in the determination of US corporate power to control the entire
region.
She concluded by mentioning the real supreme US interest.
Newly discovered resources have made Sudan of great interest to US
corporations. It is believed to have oil reserves rivaling those of Saudi
Arabia. It has large deposits of natural gas. In addition, it has one of the
three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world, along with the
fourth-largest deposits of copper.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Sudanese government has retained
its independence of Washington. Unable to control Sudans oil policy, the
US imperialist government has made every effort to stop its
development of this valuable resource The US poses as a neutral
mediator and keeps pressing Khartoum for more concessions but through its
closest African allies helped train the SLA and JEM Darfurri rebels that
initiated Khartoums violent reaction.
American media, however, did not bother about cries of Sara-likes.
Los Angeles Times wrote, the cease-fire has been ignored by both sides,
and the violence has actually increased. The only way to stop the ongoing
rape, murder and dislocation of millions of innocent Darfurians by Sudanese
soldiers and government-backed militias is to send in a strong UN
peacekeeping force empowered to protect civilians.
There still might be a way of resolving the mess. China and Russia
have long stood in the way of strong Security Council sanctions against
Sudan, but diplomatic pressure from the US, including personal attention
from President Bush, could change that. With a threat of serious sanctions
over its head, Khartoum might be persuaded to allow a peacekeeping
mission.
The Washington Post strongly argued for intervention in Sudan.
President Omar Hassan al-Bashir recently swore that there will not be any
437

international military intervention in Darfur as long as I am in power. We

will not accept colonial forces coming into the country, he continued,
attributing US pressure for intervention to Jewish organizations.
Meanwhile, Mr Bashir has some interesting organizations on his side.
Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of al-Qaeda, recently accused the
United Nations of preparing to occupy Sudan and divide it.
Mr Bashir has calculated that he can snub the international
community with impunity. As well as ruling out peacekeepers for Darfur,
Mr Bashir has recently imposed a two-day suspension on most Western aid
efforts in Darfur and is blocking humanitarian access to the victims of
another crisis in Sudans east.
His fighters are exporting instability to neighbouring Chad. And
he has missed a deadline in the Darfur peace deal for submitting a timetable
for disarming the genocidal Janjaweed militia. History has demonstrated that
Mr Bashirs regime is susceptible to foreign pressure If Mr Bashirs
shameless outpourings are not enough to solidify diplomatic efforts to
isolate his regime, its hard to know what would be.

AMERICA
The Crusades on the American soil continued. On 22nd June, seven
people, including two Haitians, were arrested in Miami for having discussed
attacks on Sears Tower in Chicago. Next day, FBI made a terrorist-related
arrest in Miami. A week later, six charged for conspiring to blow up Sears
Towers pleaded not guilty.
The main battle, however, related to defend the Crusaders on charges
of human rights violations. The Pentagon defied all criticism and insisted
that new policies on prisoners being drawn will omit tenet of the Geneva
Convention which bans humiliating and degrading treatment.
Bush defended moving of terror suspects to Europe, however, he
expressed the desire to empty Guantanamo Bay. On 10 th June, two Saudi
and one Yemeni were found dead at Gitmo facility. US claimed the
detainees had committed suicide. Families of detainees rejected the suicide
theory and pressure mounted for closure of Guantanamo. Lawmakers,
including some Republicans, criticized prolonged detention of prisoners
without trial. UN also urged the need for closure of Gitmo.
On 15th June, US military told reporters to leave Gitmo, even those
who were formally allowed. Bush again said that he wanted to close Gitmo
438

by sending the inmates back to their countries. A week later, UN criticized

abuses in war on terror and showed concern at secret detention centres.
On 29th June, the US Supreme Court ruled that Bush overstepped his
powers in setting up military war crimes tribunals for detainees. The court,
in a 5-3 vote, said that Bush Administration violated the Geneva conventions
and the US military code of justice and in ordering a military tribunal to
prosecute Salim Ahmed Hamdan Yemeni.
Overall conduct of the war on terror continued to be criticized. A
think-tank opined that the US-led war has increased the risk of terrorist
attacks. The main reason of the war proving to be counter-productive has
been the waging of the Crusades against Muslims on flimsy grounds.
Arab News opined that the West was afflicted with anti-Muslim
cancer well before 9/11. Since then, it has been on the rampage. If anything,
the assessment in a recent Cornell University survey that around half of
Americans have a negative view of Islam and want US government to curb
the political activities of Muslims in the country is almost certainly a
considerable underestimation of the problem Not that Islamophobia is
purely an American problem; it is active in Europe, India, parts of
Africa, and in too many parts of the non-Muslim world.
It is Muslims in non-Muslim societies who feel the effect;
traditionally dressed Muslim women screamed at in supermarkets in middle
America, spat at in parks in middle England, their veils torn from their faces
in France or Australia or Netherlands; it is Muslim homes daubed with
offensive slogans, mosques vandalized, a community fed a constant diet on
TV and in the press on how backward Muslim society is. This is
Islamophobia in action. In the end, however, the daily newspaper, true to
defeatist attitude, suggested that the destruction of militancy (in Muslim
World) has to go hand in hand with countering Islamophobia.
Based on the impact of the war on ground, Noam Chomsky termed
the US a failed state. There are three main criteria for failed states:
unwillingness or inability to protect its citizens from violence, insistence that
they are not answerable to international law or to any external consensus,
and failure to implement true democracy.
Patrick Seale pondered over as to what will future historians say?
They are likely to conclude that America lost its mind after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. In a fever of angry, vengeful nationalism
emotions exploited and manipulated by a cabal of pro-Israeli officials the US

439

embarked on a world-wide campaign against Islamist terrorists, which was

profoundly misconceived.
Americas violations of basic human rights at foul places such as
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, its disregard for international law, the blatant
hypocrisy of Bushs campaign to spread democracy, his abandonment of
collective internationalism in favour of policies of pre-emption and
worldwide domination all these have led a collapse of confidence in the
United States not only the Arab and Muslim World, but even among
Americas closest European allies.
Prisoner abuse, particularly at the Gitmo facility was widely
criticized. Naomi Klien after tracing the history of Americas practice of
abuse and torture of detainees, referred to CIAs Phoenix programme in
Vietnam, Americas agents were operating forty interrogation centres in
South Vietnam that killed more than twenty thousand suspects and tortured
thousands more. She thereby said that torture has been widely practiced
by America since ages.
Los Angeles Times wrote, Pentagon officials supported by Vice
President Dick Cheneys office apparently have come to believe that
including the prohibition in this manual would cramp the style of
interrogators and create an unintentional sanctuary for al-Qaeda fighters.
For example, one official complained, adherence to Article 3 might make
it difficult to punch the bottoms of a Muslim male by questioning his
manhood.
We have been here before. In 2002, Justice Department lawyers
produced a neo-infamous memo espousing a ridiculously narrow
definition of torture, limiting it to the pain accompanying death, organ
failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function. The
administration repudiated the memo, just as it had second thoughts about a
directive from Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowing interrogators to
subject detainees to mild, non-injurious physical conduct to induce them to
talk.
After three detainees committed suicide in Guantanamo facility,
the News wrote, for the US military, however, the two Saudis and one
Yemeni were committed jihadis who died for propaganda purposes. RearAdmiral Harry Harris, the military commander at Guantanamo went to the
extent of saying the triple suicide was a planned, non-spontaneous act which
was part of asymmetric warfare waged against us This is almost as
brazen as a statement once made by US Defence Secretary Donald
440

Rumsfeld that the Guantanamo prisoners were fortunate that they were
living in comfort in the tropics.
The Guardian said that Harry Harriss cold and dubious language
lacked the humanity present even in President Bushs expression of serious
concern, but is entirely in keeping with the clinical illegality of
Americas treatment of terror suspects since 2001.
In no sense, the three deaths change nothing: international law and
opinion has already condemned Guantanamo Bay as a disgrace to a
country which claims to fight its battles on behalf of freedom What is
most horrificthe abandonment of judicial process by a nation whose
identity is built on constitutional rights In Arab World, it will further
darken America and Britains reputations, already sullied by the images of
abuse at Abu Ghraib and the orange suits, shackles and hoods of Camp XRay and Delta.
The Asian Age opined, it is only a sick mind, which can see the
desperate and drastic step taken by the three detainees as an act of
warfare and terror. The Guantanamo Bay has not only turned the
venerable US values and principles on their head, but has also done
incalculable damage to the international image of the sole superpower in the
world. Mr Bush will do well to heed the Amnesty Internationals advice and
ensure that detainees are either brought up for fair trial or released.
The Washington Post wrote, Guantanamo Bay has become a toxic
symbol around the world of US human rights violations, a status magnified
by recent suicides the Bush Administration has set aside or evaded the
rules for prisoner treatment contained in the Geneva Conventions and the
Convention Against Torture but has adopted no firm standards of its own.
This political and administrative mess stems directly from Mr Bushs
decision in the weeks after Sept 11 to take extraordinary measures against
terrorism through the assertion of presidential power, rather than through
legislation, court action or diplomacy US democratic allies in Europe and
elsewhere concede that not every al-Qaeda member captured abroad can be
quickly charged with a crime or released. But the Bush Administrations
lawless practices have so discredited it that it has lost support even for
legitimate anti-terrorist measures.
Carol J Williams, who had been to Gitmo six times, wrote, when
unexpected news breaks, like the suicides, the Pentagons knee-jerk reflex to
thwart coverage reminds me of how Communist officials used to organize

441

Cold War-era propaganda trips from Moscow correspondents but then pull
the plug when embarrassing realities intruded.
What little we learn often comes to light by accident, through
casual slips-of-the-lips by military doctors, lawyers and jailers innocently
oblivious of their superiors preference for spin. A battery of questions to the
prison hospital commander who for security reasons cant be identified
elicited that prisoners are force-fed through a nasal-gastric tube if they refuse
to eat for three days and that 1,000 pills a day are dispensed to treat
detainees ailments, anxiety and depression.
As Naval Hospital commander Capt John Edmundson showed off the
48-bed prison annex, for instance, I asked, apropos of noting, if the facility
had ever been at or near capacity. Only during the mass-hanging incident,
the Navy doctor replied, provoking audible gasps and horrified expressions
among the public affairs minders and opsec operational security
watchdogs in the entourage, none of whom were particularly pleased with
the disclosure that 23 prisoners had attempted simultaneously to hang
themselves with torn bed sheets in late 2003. But such revelations are
infrequent, and the investment of time to obtain them is grossly
disproportionate.
Kevin Donegan was quite bitter and sarcastic in his remarks. After
reading the news reports carefully, I finally got it: we Americans are under
attack from a bunch of guys rotting in their jail cells. You see, the
terrorists are trying to make us look like the bad guys by killing themselves
while theyre supposed to be under 24/7 supervision. As Adm Harry B
Harris explained to reporters, the men who committed suicide at Gitmo
have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own.
They fashioned a noose out of their bed sheets. Allowing prisoners,
such comfort items as bed sheets and toiletries, will now have to be
reassessed, according to Gen Bantz J Craddock, head of the US Southern
Command. Weve treated these people so well and this is how they
repay us?
Tired of thwarting prisoners intent on hunger strikes by strapping
them to restraining chairs and force feeding them through plastic tubes,
President Bush announced additional measures the United States will
undertake to prevent further suicides:
All Guantanamo detainees will undergo sensitivity training to show
them how much it hurts our feelings and kinda makes us look bad

442

when they kill themselves in despair at being locked away indefinitely

with no legal recourse.
All newly-admitted detainees must complete a prison application,
which requires prisoners to disclose all previous instances in which
they have been imprisoned indefinitely without charge, and whether
they tried to commit suicide there or not.
To improve prisoners treatment by guards, 360-degree review will
be instituted, in which prisoners are encouraged to openly and
honestly assess the job performances of the prison guards who
terrorize them with dogs and occasionally urinate on their Korans.
Some prisoners previously transferred from Abu Ghraib will be
allowed to leave, on condition that they sign confidentiality
agreements in which on-the-job skills as such balancing, hooded, on a
wooden box while attached to electrodes and remaining calm in their
restraints while being sodomized by a broomstick couldnt be
disclosed to future jailors, in order to avert leaking any trade secrets.
Eugene Robinson wrote, one State Department official called their
deaths by hanging a good PR move, and while those words were quickly
disavowed by higher-ups, the general reaction from the US government
has been something pretty close to good riddance. In this part of the
world they say; KHAS KAM JEHAN PAK. This is what Americans think of
human beings from other than the civilized world.
James Carroll was of the view that little thought seems to have been
given even now to the consequences for Americans when they are captured
in future conflicts by enemies who will surely cite Guantanamo as precedent
for methods tantamount to torture.
Bush Administration kept facing difficulties with Judiciary on war
related issues. Mark Follman said, the Bush Administrations aggressive
deployment of state secrets claims bear no small resemblance to right-wing
Senate Republicans threatening to wipe out Democratic filibustering of
judicial nominees. It has become a nuclear option for the executive branch,
one that aims to obliterate any judicial check on Bushs most central,
most closely held tactics in the war on terror.
Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights,
which represents nearly half of the Guantanamo detainees, was thrilled by
the Supreme Courts decision. What this says to the administration is that

443

you can no longer decide arbitrarily what you want to do with people. It
upheld the rule of law in this country and determined that the executive has
gone beyond the constitution and international law.
Marc Pitzke wrote that the Supreme Court gave the White House a
slap in the face that resounded around the world The judges
fulminated that it was they and not the president who made the decisions on
the law, and more so than ever in times of war.
The Washington Post tried to portray the decision as controversial.
The 5 to 3 decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld will be controversial; indeed,
legal scholars will debate its many components for years to come. In
practical terms, however, it is a huge victory for Fundamental American
values and one that will dramatically aid in putting the war against
terrorism on a sound legal basis.
While trials were the principal subject of the case, the more important
holding may be one the court offered in passing: that Common Article 3 of
the Geneva Conventions covers all detentions in this conflict. The
administrations long-standing contentions that al-Qaeda detainees are
almost wholly outside of the protection of international law is, the Supreme
Court says, simply wrong.
The News said, despite the Supreme Courts decision, however, it
would be unrealistic to expect an early closure of the prison. There are
two reasons for this pessimism. The commander of the Guantanamo Bay
naval base, Rear Adm. Harry Harrishad already said this week that an
adverse ruling would have a negligible effect on the prisons future. And
Mr Bushs own response to the court ruling suggested that he was in no
hurry to close the facility or end the military tribunals.
Robert Kagan urged to keep the Crusades going. No one should
lightly dismiss the current hostility toward the United States. International
legitimacy matters. It is important in itself, and it affects others willingness
to work with us. But neither should we be paralyzed by the unavoidable
resentments that our power creates. If we refrain from action out of fears that
others around the world would be angry with us, then we would never act.
And count on it: Theyd blame us for that, too.
Adel Safty was of the view that the war was all about maintaining
Americas supremacy by stopping emergence of any challenge. The new
strategic directions and policy orientations were spelled out immediately
after the Gulf War in documents entitled Prevent Re-Emergence of a New

444

Rival. Some of the possible rivals identified and actions recommended were
as under.
Russia will remain the only power in the world with the capability of
destroying the US, therefore the US should rely on its massive strategic
nuclear arsenal and continue to target vital aspects of the former Soviet
military establishment.
Asia was recognized in the in the policy documents as the region with
the heaviest concentration of political and economic beliefs at variance with
the American system. The US must therefore maintain its status as a
military power of the first magnitude in the area, to prevent the
emergence of any new power seeking to dominate the region or to challenge
the established order.
In the Middle East, the overall American objective, the documents
said, is to ensure that the US remains the predominant outside power in the
region and preserve the US and western access to the regions oil The
documents did not overlook even its strongest ally, Europe. Although it is
commonly recognized that Western Europe is no longer threatened by any
power from the East, The US does not want to dismantle NATO, which
served to institutionalize its dominant role in Europe. As a result, the US will
oppose any European move towards greater independence vis--vis
Washington and will insist that NATO continue to provide basis of any
security system in Europe
The emphasis is clearly and unambiguously on reliance on
American military power as the principal instrument of preserving
American supremacy. There is no mention of the UN even though the
organization was effectively used to give legality to the US-led war against
Iraq in 1991.
There is a brief mention about the fact that coalitions hold
considerable promise for promoting collective actionbut for more
significant is the emphasis the Wolfowitz document places on American
ability to intervene militarily with or without international backing In
sum: American leaders, the documents said, must maintain the mechanism
for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or
global role.

EUROPE AND CANADA

445

Europe-CIA collaboration in handling of Muslim prisoners was partly

exposed in a report by a Swiss Senator. EU was mulled refining strategy in
an effort to help stop Muslim youths turning to terrorism. It was getting
cautious in choice of words about Islam. However, malaise and mistrust
were on the rise, particularly in Britain, between the majority and the
Muslim minority. Following incidents related to war on terror were reported
during the period:
Two Bangladeshis suspected of terror were arrested in London on 2 nd
June. Six days later, Syed Hashmi, a Pakistani-American suspected of
involvement in terrorism, was arrested.
On 9th June, two Muslim youth, including the one injured during
arrest, were released in London after a week-long detention for
interrogation. Muslims in Britain voiced concern over killing of a
Muslim youth in police raid.
Two Danish writers accused Prime Minister Rasmussen of
mishandling the crisis over publication of cartoons.
Norways Muslim leader praised good work of Osama and Zarqawi.
According to a poll, Muslims in UK are the most anti-western. Their
attitude resembles public opinion in Islamic nations.
On 27th June, a Danish court convicted entire family of nine over
murder of Ghazala who married against her family will. Two terror
suspects were arrested in London. Muslims in UK were reported
losing confidence in police because of its hostility since 7/7.
Dutch Immigration Minister escaped no-confidence vote over Hirsi
Ali fiasco on 29th June. Next day, Dutch government resigned over the
issue.
On 5th July, a British Muslim leader was fined for organizing protests
against blasphemous cartoons without permission.
M B Naqvi raised some questions about Europes collaboration in
Americas war on terror. The motivation of the smaller NATO nations also
needs to be considered. Why should the entire organization membership, the
east Europeans included, act exactly as the Americans want them to? Why
should they intervene in distant lands in Asia and Africa and in the process
risk getting their own soldiers killed? What specific national interest of other
NATO members would be served from such an exercise? Answer to all the

446

questions is very simple; Europe is driven by the spirit of the Crusades,

which most intellectuals like him fail to read.
According to the News the European countries were partners in
crime. When members of the European Union are advised, as they have
been recently by Amnesty International, to stop being Americas partners in
crime in its policy of rendition of prisoners, Tony Blair and his government
immediately come to mind Surprisingly, even countries that one would
have thought to be pacifist, progressive and neutral such as Sweden have
been named
It said that there was irrefutable evidence of European complicity
in the unlawful practice of renditions and asked the countries taking part
in an EU summit in Brussels to put a resolute stop to the attitude of see no
evil, hear no evil that has prevailed so far.
Duraid Al-Baik saw a ray of hope. The voice of wisdom is finally
heard loud and clear from Austria. The protest by the 25-nation European
Union (EU) against illegal detention camps at Guantanamo Bay was
strong enough to shake the stubborn US policy on its infamous incarceration
centres in Cuba.
The EU should continue to exert pressure on the US not only to close
the detention camps at Guantanamo, but also to reconsider its viewpoint on
other critical issues in the world, including the unilateral management of
international crisis that has resulted in a number of serious setbacks to
human rights The US cannot continue to act as a bully while deliberating
on international issues. Such an attitude would endanger not only US
interests, but the security of the world as a whole.
Ansar Mahmood Bhatti observed that the process has already started.
Europes increased interest in global matters, particularly in the Middle
East and South Asia, has the US worried. The way the European Union has
tackled Irans nuclear issue, has on one hand made it clear that the EU has
the potential to play a mediators role even outside Europe and on the other,
it has sent clear signals to the White House that a force antagonistic to
unilateralism is very much in the making with the capability of diluting the
US status of a single superpower.
Pro-US European leaders are caught up in a weird situation that as to
how they should convince their people that the US was not a bad country
after all In the given circumstances the road leading to a EU-US dtente
seems to be fraught with many obstacles, which might take US a long
time to clear them
447

Canada, being part of the world of White Christians, could not resist
joining the holy war against followers of Islam. On 6 th June, the documents
released by a Canadian court claimed that 17 Muslims arrested earlier were
part of a home-grown terrorist cell. On 30th June, Canada denied entry to
British Muslim cleric, Sheikh Riyad Ul-Haq.
The Toronto Star observed, there is no section of Canadas
multicultural mosaic under more stress today than countrys 750,000
Muslims. Many in this community are reeling, struggling to absorb the
shocking news that 17 of their members have been arrested Vandals have
already struck, shattering the windows of a Rexdale mosque.
To prevent a backlash on a scale that has occurred in parts of Europe,
parents and friends, and community and educational and religious leaders
within the Muslim community as well as the greater Canadian society
must be ready to challenge the extremists in their midst. If we are to move
forward as a nation against terror attacks, all Canadians Muslim and nonMuslim must realize we are in this together.
Gwynne Dyer saw the arrest of suspected terrorists in Canada as part
of the international conspiracy. There are isolated small groups of
extremists who blow things up once a while, and there are websites and
other media through which they can exchange ideas and techniques, but
there are no headquarters, no chain of command, no organization that
can be defeated, dismantled and destroyed.
The Sept 11 attacks on the United States were a spectacularly
successful flukebut there have been no further Islamist attacks in the US.
The two subsequent attacks (in London and Madrid) were both carried
out by local people with no links to any international terrorist
network.
The contrast between the received wisdom that the world, or at
least the West, is engaged in a titanic, unending struggle against a terrorist
organization of global reach and not the very impressive reality is so great
that most people in the West believe the official narrative rather than the
evidence of their own eyes.
Chicago Tribune wrote, Canadian authorities reportedly had been
tracking the group through e-mail, Internet chat rooms and telephone
conversations. The Associated Press quoted an unnamed US official as
saying investigators are looking for connections between the detainees and

448

suspected Islamic militants held in the US, Britain, Bangladesh, Bosnia,

Denmark and Sweden.
The lack of any significant North American attack since Sept 11,
2001, has lulled many Americans into thinking that preparedness, vigilance
and resolve are yesterdays necessities. This Canadian case demonstrates
the constant nature of the threat facing the US and its allies and the
constant effort needed to preempt it.

MUSLIMS
Muslim rulers should listen what their peoples say and ponder over
their wisdom in supporting the US war on terror. Najla al-Rostamani
quoted some figures of recently conducted opinion survey by YouGov/Gulf
News:
A whopping 70% believed that the policies of the current US
administration had made the worlds a worse place to live in.
Majority of the respondents showed lack of confidence in
superpowers ability to resolve the problems faced by the world
today; 37 % were unconfident and 31% were very unconfident.
A total of 83% of respondents said that current American policies and
actions were resulting in greater instability in the Middle East and the
Arab World.
A total of 89% said the country under Bush has lost credibility while
86% said it has lost popularity. Among Arabs the percentages were
92% and 94% respectively.
A total of 51% did not perceive America is not the sole superpower
of the world.
One of the reasons behind the anti-war public opinion has been the
treatment meted out to detainees. Entire world has been speaking against
the excesses committed by the Crusaders and their partners, except the elite
in Islamic World, perhaps out of feeling guilty. Andrew Higgins made some
interesting revelations.
Abu Bakker Qassim and four fellow Muslims from China were
cleared after four years of interrogation in Gitmo facility. But, it faced
problems in freeing them for want of a country that would accept them.

449

More than hundred countries were approached, but all of them refused
to accept them, fearful of upsetting China, at last Albania accepted them.
The reason quoted for not sending them to their country of origin was
that China severely punishes Muslims from far west for advocating
independence. The analyst, however, concealed the real intention. America
still has the plans to use Muslims of Uighur in future as part of its design to
contain China. Beijing rightly accused Washington of hypocrisy and asked
Albania to hand over the men.
The analyst added that there are 116 detainees at Gitmo who are no
longer considered a serious threat or valuable to US intelligence. Among
them is Zakijan Hassan, an Uzbek dissident desperate to avoid going back
to Uzbekistan. He claimed that before sending detainees home, US
officials seek guarantees they will be treated humanely which has
slowed US negotiations. He indirectly conveyed that the rulers in Islamic
countries treat Muslims worse than the Crusaders do.
Khaled Almaeena wrote, the Ummah and far too many freedomloving people in the world have kept silent while the unfortunate detainees
were being subjected to the severest mental and physical torture in what is
simply nothing but an American-run hellhole. Abandoned by us all, these
poor and many innocent detainees have endured a horror beyond
imagining.
While unreservedly condemning the US government, we must also
give credit to the many Americans who have not only protested and spoken
out against their governments actions but who have also offered help to the
detainees as much as possible and who have brought cases before US
courts.
There is no case. No proof Take the case of the five Muslim
Uighurs enroute to Turkey through Afghanistan; they were caught in the
cross-fire as the US Air Force rained down death and destruction and they
fled to neighbouring Pakistan. They were first given hospitality by the local
tribesmen and then taken to a mosque and handed over to US forces who
had paid the tribesmen $ 5,000 for each of them.
When poor innocent people were taken by force to Guantanamo and
subjected to the worst mental torture, we did the Arab thing and buried our
heads into the sand. The Americans took their sweet time at reclassifying
the sufferers

450

Deepak Chopra wrote about demonizing Islam and its

followers. Watching the news, one would think that all Muslims are
either wildly fanatic or wildly irrational. In John Uplikes latest novel,
The Terrorist, the hero is a suburban Muslim teenager from New Jersey bent
on becoming a suicide bomber; his rationale? These devils want to take
away my God. One-sided perspectives always are flawed, as this case
proves.
I realize that millions of Americans either dont want to hear any
more from Arab World or have fixed negative opinions about those who
practice Islam. But they also want to find a way to avoid a future full of
endless battles such as Iraq. The only way is to get some lessons on
peaceful co-existence.
The beauty of understanding is that it helps clear up one of the chief
causes of war, which is misunderstanding. Frankly, Im tired of seeing a
billion Muslims as one bogyman. Isnt it time we asked them who they
really are? They have been portrayed like a people suffering from plague or
deadly virus of Islam there by causing concern for the entire world.
Los Angeles Times rejoiced over publication of blasphemous
cartoons during Danish Prime Ministers visit to Washington. Contrary to
the fervent hopes of radical Islamists, the deadly protests over a handful of
cartoons published in a Copenhagen newspaper last fall have not brought
Denmark to its knees; quite the opposite. The fiery imam who helped spark
the violence has left the country in a sulphurous huff, and the pro-US,
centre-right government has been strengthened.
Another example of prejudices against Muslims is the attitude of the
Western Union. It delayed or blocked thousands of cash deliveries on
suspicion of terrorist connections simply because senders or recipients
have names like Mohammad or Ahmed, as disclosed a company official.
Muslims are somewhat tolerable only if they are enlightened,
otherwise they are Islamists. Enlightenment of Muslims is another
objective of the Crusaders. Muslim rulers should ponder as to why the US,
which has been censoring school/college textbooks of Islamic countries, has
included Arabic language training, Islamic law and culture in the syllabus of
the US Military Academy at West Point. Certainly, this has not been done to
bridge the gap between two civilizations.
When the entire world was concerned about death and destruction in
Iraq, Brian Whitaker talked about other aspects of grim picture of life in
451

free and democratic Iraq. He mentioned that some groups are pushing
women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most
conservative. Some people are harassing women and telling them to cover
up and stop using cell phones (suspected channel to licentious relationship
with men). Wahabis have scared the people to the extent that they have
stopped wearing shorts and jeans. It amply reflected on concerns of the
Crusaders.
Sylvia Maier, however, saw some encouraging glimpses. Amid the
images of death, destruction and mayhem in Iraq, some piece of good news
from the Middle East has gone virtually unnoticed. Womens rights are
progressing in many Middle Eastern countries, and numerous small but
important victories have been won.
Western countries should support progressive Arab monarchies,
such as King Mohammed VI of Morocco, King Abdullah of Jordan and the
emirs of Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar in their reform efforts. The European
Unions Neighbourhood Policy, which offers preferred access to the
European market in return for political and social reforms, is one example.
The West should provide moral, political and logistical support to
womens groups in the region, taking its cue from local activists about their
priorities and needs. The focus is on bringing political and social
compatibility with the West.
British playwright Harold Pinter commented on the rhetoric of
democracy. The United States supported and, in many cases, engendered
every right-wing military dictatorship in the world after World War II
Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines,
Guatemala, El Salvador and, of course Chile
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place in those countriesbut
you wouldnt know it. The crimes of the US have been systematic,
constant, vicious, and remorseless but very few people have actually
talked about them. Presently, America is actively involved in fighting in two
countries even after installation of democratic governments of its choice. It
is also active pushing for the regime-change of two democratically elected
governments in Palestine and Iran.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal drew the attention of Muslim rulers toward
Americas plan for the Long War. It means an endless war against an
unidentifiable enemy. It means war at several fronts ranging from
battlefields to academies of higher learning, and from internet websites to
452

neighbourhood streets; in fact, just as there is no well-defined enemy, there

is no well-defined battlefield. This is something entirely different from
the Cold War which dominated American policies from 1946 to 1991.
It means rapid strikes, unconventional warfare, operations of the kind
undertaken in Falluja, treatment of prisoners like that of Abu Ghraib. It
means working with foreign military personnel, interference in the affairs of
other countries, even operations involving kidnapping of suspects from
foreign countries. It also means sustained, long-term presence of
American intelligence and military personnel in many countries.
Those who have mapped out strategies for this Long War are men
and women obsessed with one ambition: restructuring the world to
ensure American hegemony in all parts of the world. They are now calling
it the American Empire but the idea of an empire is not far from their
minds.
Differences between the Cold War and the Long War are, however,
merely at the operational level. At the ideological level, the two wars have
much in common. The Cold War was against an ideology deemed dangerous
to the way of life of the Western world. Demonized for so long, the men who
constructed the iron curtain and ruled ruthlessly behind it have been framed
as villains without a chance for redemption. The Long War has a similar
focus: the ideological enemy here is Islamic extremism.
But the similarities end there, for whereas communism could be
defined and pinpointed, Islamic extremism cannot be defined. Even the
writer and the readers of this Quantum Note can be classified as a
specimen of that category. In fact, anyone from a journalist to a university
professor who happens to say the wrong thing at the wrong time can be
called an enemy, directly or by association. Those who browse the
worldwide web in search of real news and end up visiting certain sites under
surveillance, those with long beards, pagaries, shimoghs, and hijabs all are
suspect, unless otherwise proven.
The Long War has long arms. It has already co-opted almost all
major institutions which make up America: the media, the corporate
world, and the judiciary. Only the Academy remains at an arms length, but
those in the Academy who can still see the great folly in the making, are few
and far between. And those who have eyes to see and the intellect to fathom
the horror are powerless, helplessly watching the dissolution of the great
American dream.

453

Parag Khanna focused on Arabs in the context of Long War. Some

American commentators bend over backwards to portray Arab societies as
backwards or feeble. Conservatives argue that it was necessary to invade
Iraq because repressive regimes and Islamic fundamentalists in the
Middle East only understand the language of force The Arab World,
in short, is under-globalized and seems all but cut off from the global
currents of modernity.
The analyst rejected the Crusaders viewpoint. The Arab World
forever lies at the crossroads of Western, Eastern and African civilizations. It
has been pivotal to most great historical developments and events from the
Silk Road to the Crusades to World War II. For most of the twentieth
century, and for the foreseeable future, the concentration of the worlds oil
supply in Arab hands puts them very much in control of the fuel of the
global economy itself.
At all levels of international politics, economics and culture, the Arab
World is not merely on the receiving end of globalizations forces, like third
world countries blatantly exploited by multinational corporations. Rather, it
is learning how to use and manipulate globalization to its own
advantages.
Today, Arab television networks such as al-Jazeera and alArabiya have also learned from Western journalist methods and turned
their lenses outward, becoming globally competitive in Arabic and soon in
English with their challenging interpretations of global events.
The pan-Arabism of a half-century ago had all the elements of selfserving dictatorial posturing of leaders too nervous to actually cede
sovereignty to a greater Arab essence. The new Arabism requires no false
centre like the Arab League, or a Nasserite socialist hero.
Unlike the twenty-five members of the EU, the over twenty Arab
nations already share a common language and religion, neither of which they
need to debate in months of supranational constitutional wrangling. The
combination of mass media and shared geopolitical grievances, alongside
the painful awareness of the arbitrariness of the Western-imposed borders,
are transforming the Arab political landscape into one of remarkably
consistent public opinion in suspicion of American foreign policy, views on
the role of religion in public life, and the diminished legitimacy of unelected
rulers. Like the sense of European-ness, this sense of Arabism is rapidly
accelerating among the electronically and professionally globalizing younger
generation in the Arab World.
454

The Arab World is itself so vast stretching from Morocco to the

Persian Gulf that its internal globalization is actually more revealing about
globalization trends than its relations with the outside world. But, the
question is; are the Arab rulers listening?

CONCLUSION
Catholic identity of East Timor has been purified by removing the
pollution caused by the Muslim Prime Minister, Alkatiri. But, the successes
in the global war end there. North Korea defied the West by test-firing long
range missiles exposing the limitations of the lone superpower of the world.
SCO meeting and growing military prowess of China will continue causing
worries to those embarked upon building an empire.
Islamists in Somalia proved that the peace returns only when the US
troops or the warlords backed by America are thrown out of power. It
happened in Afghanistan and now in Somalia. But peace in Islamic countries
is not the goal of the Crusaders. The Reuters has already urged them to act
by pointing out the possibility of practice of Islamic values and Sharia law.
America, despite the criticism of the war, remained determined to
build an empire. American imperialism seemed different from the European.
The latter built empire by military action combined with winning over
people using other means. This was necessary because large populations
could not be subjugated for longer duration purely through use of force.
The former had learnt altogether different lesson from history. The
landing in America was followed by the elimination of the Red Indians.
Since then, Americans have shown no desire to acquire expertise of winning
over the people. Therefore, they continue encountering problems in building
an empire in 21st century, particularly in countries for more densely
populated as compared to the continent of America half a millennium ago.
Muslim masses are angry over the brutalities of the Crusaders and
frustrated by the complacence of their rulers. Muslim rulers, guided by their
wisdom, have opted to follow the directions of the Crusaders ignoring the
sentiment of their people and thereby sleep-walking to subjugation.
7th July 2006

ESCALATION BY ISRAEL

455

Israel had been targeting Palestinians constantly with the aim of

forcing them to retaliate. At last, the Palestinian fighters sneaked into Israeli
territory by digging a tunnel under the notorious wall and killed two Israeli
soldiers and captured one. This was the pretext Israel had been looking for to
escalate the conflict with a view to toppling the Hamas government.
By 29th June, Israeli troops arrested more than 60 Palestinians
including 23 Cabinet ministers and 20 of its 72 lawmakers. Israel rejected
kidnappers demand for the release of Palestinian prisoners. It also
threatened to kill Hamas fighters harboured by the Damascus. The same day,
dead body of executed Israeli settler was found in West Bank.
Next day, Israel revoked the Jerusalem residency of a Hamas cabinet
minister and three members of the parliament. Israeli army killed two
Palestinians and arrested two others in Nablus. Ismail Haniya said offensive
in Gaza was aimed at toppling the Hamas-led government.
Bombing of training camps and escape routes continued on 1 st July.
Israel again rejected captors demand for release of 1,000 Palestinians.
European Union desired that Israel should free the Hamas ministers. The
US, however blamed Syria for escalating Israeli-Palestinian tensions.
Next day, Israeli helicopter fired rockets at Haniyehs office. Olmert
ordered army to intensify Gaza operation. Hamas armed wing threatened to
resume attacks. Annan said Palestinian institutions must be preserved. On 3 rd
July, EU again urged Israel to release Hamas officials.
Next day, Israel stepped up pressure on Syria over aiding kidnapping
of its soldier. Annan talked to Assad on telephone and Turkey sent a special
envoy to Syria to defuse the tensions. The captors said that they wont kill
Israeli soldier. On 5th June, Israel attacked headquarters of interior ministry
of PA and two Palestinians were killed. Qassam Brigades fired rockets onto
Israeli territory.
Israel reoccupied parts of Gaza Strip on 6 th July. Twenty Palestinians
and an Israeli soldier were killed in the operation. In the West Bank, Israeli
forces detained the deputy speaker of the Palestinian parliament during a
raid on refugee camp in which seven Palestinians were wounded. Hamas
government placed its security forces on high alert and urged all Palestinians
to take up arms against the Israeli military. OIC called for intervention.
Israeli offensive continued in Gaza Strip and 7 Palestinians were
killed on 7th July. Abbas condemned Israels new crimes against humanity.
Nejad termed Jewish state a fabricated regime. Next day, Israel rejected

456

Hamas offer of ceasefire. Two Hamas gunmen and a Palestinian were

wounded in exchange of fire with Israeli forces. Ahmedinejad called on
Islamic countries to mobilize against Israel and remove the Zionist
regime.
On 9th July, three Palestinians were wounded in early morning air
strike. One Palestinian was killed and another wounded in another air strike.
At least 50 Palestinians had been killed to date. A rocket was fired in the
Israeli town of Sderot and another on a border town. Olmert said, this is a
war that cannot be on timetable.
Next day, Meshaal insisted that Israeli soldier wont be released
without swap of Palestinian prisoners. Israel carried out more air strikes in
Gaza Strip. One Palestinian security officer was killed and six people
wounded. One boy died of wounds received earlier.
Ahmadinejad warned that Israel-backers risked Muslim anger. On 12 th
July, twenty-three Palestinians were killed, including seven children from
the same family as Israel pounded Gaza. Abbas asked US and Quartet for
intervention.

AIM AND PRETEXTS

The aim of the war is never divulged to other than those who are
tasked to achieve it. On the other hand, the pretexts to wage war are hyped
widely. This has been the case about Israels reinvasion of Gaza Strip.
Therefore, it was up to the political and military analysts to see the real aim
of Israel, though in this case they dont need a magic crystal ball to do it.
Israels goal in Gaza is to make Palestinians uncomfortable
enough to think twice about committing more kidnappings, or in the
language floating around the camp here, to teach them a lesson, wrote Hene
R Prusher and Joshua Mitnick. General Galant suggested that from Israels
point of view, the ball is in the Palestinians court.
Haaretz was of the view that on the face of it, Israel wants to exert
increasing pressure both on Hamas political leadership and on the
Palestinian public, in order to induce it to pressure its leadership to
release the soldier. At the same time, the government claims that Syria or
at least Khaled Meshaal, who is living in Syria holds the key. If so, what is
the point of pressuring the local Palestinian leadership, which did not know
of the planned attack and which, when it found, demanded that the
kidnappers take good care of their victim and return him?
457

The Daily Star wrote that Israels Cabinet instructed the military to
prepare for gradual and lengthy military activity, which will include the
creation of an occupation zone in the northern Gaza Strip. The Israelis
insist that such a security zone is necessary to prevent rocket attacks on
Israeli cities, but Palestinian leaders say that recent events have served as a
pretext to impose a fait acompli.
Uri Avnery rejected this out rightly. The kidnapped soldier served as
a pretext for an operation which must have been prepared a long time
ago. The Israeli and international public has been told that the aim is to set
him free, but in practice it has put his life in greater jeopardy.
The connection between the kidnapped soldier and the operation
exists only in the realm of propaganda. The same goes for the second
pretext: that the aim is to put an end to the launching of Qassam rockets at
the town of Sderot True, this is indeed an intolerable situation. The
Qassam, a simple and inexpensive weapon, causes more panic than real
damage, like the German V-rockets fired on London in World War II.
A clear aim, which the operation is designed to attain by simple
means: breaking the Palestinian population by the liquidation of its
leadership, destruction of its infrastructure and cutting off food supplies,
medicines, electricity, water and sanitary services not to mention
employment. The message to the Palestinians: if you want to put an end to
your suffering, remove the government you have elected.
Patrick Seale said, referring to the democratically-elected Hamas
government, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer declared, no one has immunity. This is
not a government. It is a murderous organization. This judgment might
more accurately describe Israels own government.
Why have Olmert and Amir Peretz, his hapless defence minister,
gone down this road to nowhere? Some observers have suggested they may
want to show that they are as good at killing Arabs as their predecessors
because, unlike previous Israeli leaders, they lack any significant military
experience. But this can be only part of the story.
Israels second reason for striking at Gaza is political. It is seeking to
destroy the Hamas government by all possible means including physical
liquidation because it knows that Hamass terms for a settlement would be
stiffer than it could possibly accept.
It abhors the recent Hamas-Fatah accord, which implicitly
recognizes Israel, because it threatens to produce a Palestinian partner

458

ready to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.

Israel has no intention of ever returning to those borders. It is no accident
that its latest assault followed immediately on the Palestinian accord.
Israel will do everything to avoid a negotiation. Hence, it
deliberately inflicts inhumane hardships in order to radicalize them and drive
the moderates from the scene. Moderates, who are prepared to talk, are
Israels real enemies.
Galal Nassar was of the view that the capture of an Israeli occupation
soldier offered it convenient cover to wage yet another of its premeditated campaigns of aggression, exactly as it often did in the past
Since Hamas came to power, Israel has been waiting for the right moment to
bring down the Palestinian government. This is what the current
confrontation is all about.
Arab News wrote, what began as campaign to secure the release of
an abducted soldier has taken on additional aims and produced added results
that Israel could not have dreamt of achieving otherwise The Israeli
government has relegated the declared goal of freeing Gilad Shalit to a
secondary issue, with toppling the Hamas-led government as the real
target.
The Washington Post rejected the charge that Israels offensive in
the Gaza Strip is aimed at overturning his government. Its not clear
thats the case the incursion seems mainly intended to recover a soldier
held hostage by Palestinian militants. But if it is, Israel would be entirely
justified.
The newspaper granted such right to Israel. If Hamas wants to be
equated with Hezbollah or define itself as at war with Israel, then Israel has
every right to try to destroy the Islamic movements military capacity,
to capture its leaders and to topple its government. Isnt that what happens in
war?
As it is, Israels Gaza incursion has been reluctant, slow, carefully
calibrated and as of yesterday, casualty-free Meanwhile, the rocket
firings continued another act of war that Hamas has encouraged, if not
sponsored. The restraint reflects recognition by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
that Israel stands only to lose if the Palestinian Authority is destroyed by
force.

FIXING THE BLAME

459

The responsibility for this latest escalation rests squarely with

Hamas, whose military wing tunneled into Israel on Sunday, killed two
Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another. This was a follow-up to a declaration
earlier this month by Hamass political leadership that the groups 16-month
intermittent cease-fire would no longer be observed. Under the
circumstances, an Israeli military response was inevitable, wrote the New
York Times.
It added, the renewed presence of Israeli forces in Gaza may give a
short-term boost to Hamass local popularity. But once the immediate
adrenaline rush wears off, the Palestinians who elected Hamas, and the Arab
nations on which it now depends for financial survival, need to survey the
wreckage and draw the obvious conclusions. When Hamas was only an
opposition movement, its provocative behaviour was a major impediment
to peace. As a governing party, it is far worse.
Los Angeles Times wrote, once again, escalating violence threatens
to derail any hope of a breakthrough between Israelis and Palestinians. It is a
depressingly familiar theme in a depressingly familiar struggle, prompting a
depressingly familiar response: These latest horrors should not be allowed to
affect the prospects for peace.
For these more intransigent leaders of Hamas, any
accommodation with Israel is unacceptable. They must be ecstatic at
Israels retaliatory incursion into Gaza. Regardless of whether Prime
Minister Ehud Olmerts government is justified, the Israeli militarys
destruction of vital infrastructure in Gaza and its detainment of several
Palestinian cabinet ministers and lawmakers in Ramallah runs the risk of
further radicalizing the Palestinian population and further marginalizing
more moderate voices within the Palestinian government.
Zaid Asali said, it is becoming clearer that Hamas is dividing
between those, primarily in Gaza and the West Bank, who are essentially
nationalists willing to begin to take the steps needed to join the secularists in
pursuing independent statehood alongside Israel, and those mostly located
outside Palestine, who are more committed to a religious ideology.
Indeed, some Hamas leaders might even prefer to avoid resolving
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, since the pan-Islamic movement and those
states supporting its activities stand to benefit more from keeping the cause
alive and the conflict going.
An additional complication is that the more radical Hamas leaders
outside Gaza and the West Bank are in control of the funds provided by
460

Iran and others. They may act independently of the Hamas leadership in
Gaza, as demonstrated by present crisis.
Majority rejected the above contention. Israels excessive response to
the kidnapping of one of its soldier reflects its general disdain of the
Palestinians and shows how its leaders overreact to certain events. Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert has said that his government wont hesitate to carry
out extreme action to bring Cpl Gilad Shalit back wrote the News.
The overreaction went a bit further with Israeli Justice Minister Haim
Ramon saying that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal was a target for
assassination. Given Israels record of political violencethis recent
warning may come across as inevitable.
A week later, the news added, Israels reaction to the abduction of its
soldier has been extreme. It has amassed tanks and infantry along Gazas
northern border and is on the verge of invading Olmerts government is
said to be under severe pressure for taking action against the abduction of its
soldier. That is understandable because public opinion in Israel over an
issue related to Palestine tends to be dominated by rightwing hawks and
there are only shades of right as far as such matters are concerned.
Where was the international outrage and outcry when a couple of
weeks ago Israels navy attacked innocent civilians killing several of them
of atrocities regularly committed by the IDF against unarmed Palestinians,
including, in many cases, children.
There would be little need for this long war if Mr Olmerts
government recognized the reality that Hamas was elected to office
democratically and negotiated with it, just like his predecessor tried to with
the PLO The whole process was backed by Washington, until of course
the result produced a victory for Hamas.
The Asian Age opined, the brutal attack on the Palestinians by
Israeli forces smacks of intolerance and authoritarianism. The Israeli
security forces have kidnapped seven cabinet ministers, over 60 members of
Parliament and senior government officials in Palestine, in a move that must
invite outright condemnation The concentrated attack on Hamas, that has
now reached unimaginable proportions by Israel, is not being opposed in the
manner it should have been by the other Palestinian groups.
Haaretz wrote, the government was caught up too quickly in a
whirlwind of prestige mixed with fatigue. It must return to its senses at
once, be satisfied with the threats it has made, free the detained Hamas

461

politicians and open negotiations. The issue is a soldier who must be brought
home, not changing the face of the Middle East. At least Khaled Meshaal,
who is living in Syria holds the key. If so, what is the point of pressuring
the local Palestinian leadership., which did not know of the planned attack
and which, when it found, demanded that the kidnappers take good care of
their victim and return him?
Will Hutton was of the view that Israel has frequently resorted to
the doctrine of disproportionate response: not an eye for eye, but 10 to 20
Palestinian deaths for every Israeli loss But disproportionality on such a
scale is self-escalating. It casts Israel as the rogue state and Palestinians as
victim. These are not the actions of a government that wants to be a partner
of peace.
The dark interpretation of Israels reaction in Gaza is that it does not
want a politically viable negotiating partner in Palestine. It suits Israel to
characterize Hamas as terrorist fundamentalists who are beyond the pale
What happened last week was an international disgrace. We need to say so.
We hold Hamas to account for its words and actions. The same applies to
Israel.
M B Naqvi said, Israelis have kept Palestinians confined to certain
areas without any rights and when they protest they are labeled terrorists and
punished in supposed retaliation. They ballyhoo on the arrest of an Israeli
corporal and this invasion is also for retaliation. No one mentions the
wanton killing of six innocent civilians on the beach earlier on which
Hamas ended its ceasefire and retaliated.
Jonathan Steele urged that Israel must renounce violence, in
particular the assassinations of Palestinian leaders. The number of civilians
killed in these attacks this year alone far exceeds the number of Israeli
victims since Hamas declared its ceasefire last year. The facts do not
support the notion that Israel is retaliating to provocation.
The Daily Star wrote, it was only after 20 years of Israels brutal and
racist occupation policies that the Palestinian population rose up to protest
against their oppressors. Recent events serve to demonstrate that the Israelis
are still grappling with an internal insecurity that is projected onto an
entire Palestinian population, as if every Palestinian man, woman and child
represents a menace and a threat to Israels existence.
Marwan al-Kabalan said, even when Hamas was moving closer
towards accepting the conditions of the Quartet, Israel had never
stopped killing Palestinian activists based on their intentions to attack
462

Israel Fifteen years of painful negotiations since the Madrid peace

conference in 1991 have yielded in absolutely nothing.
Hezbollahhas humiliated the invincible Israeli army and
embarrassed the Arab World, which for half a century failed in defending
Arab lands and Arab dignity. For the first time in the regions history, Israel
was forced to withdraw from an Arab land without a schedule, without
negotiations and above all without humiliating provisions.
Hamas must have understood the lesson well and after being
squeezed to the crash point it was spared no option but to adopt
Hezbollahs strategy and emulate its tactics Total isolation, daily
bombardment, cutting off aid and stamping the new Palestinian government
with terrorism were among the policies Israel adopted to oust Hamas
However, fearing massive Israeli retaliation along with huge domestic
challenges, Hamas decided not to respond. When Hamass response came, it
sounded like a slap on the face for the Israeli military.
Yet, the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier came at the wrong time for
Hamas. Israel was waiting for an opportunity to destroy the new Palestinian
government, prove its helplessness and tarnish its image. Israel grabbed
this opportunity and exploited it to a maximum end.
Imtiaz Gul reported that the analyst who has visited Israel recently,
based on his interaction with Israelis, concluded, little do the Israelis realize
that unless they appear somewhat magnanimous and humane in their
handling of the Palestinian issue, and until they accept all Palestinians as
equal partners, their acceptance among Muslims at large will remain elusive
and difficult.

OUTSIDE FACTORS
The Asian Age wrote. the disunity (of Palestinian leaders) has also
added to the woes of the civilian opposition, although this is a small factor in
what is now emerging as an international conspiracy to isolate and
cripple Hamas. The US has increasingly looked upon Israel as vital to its
interests in West Asia, with Tel Aviv and the powerful Jewish lobby in the
US exercising a great deal of influence on the policies of the Bush
Administration.
In Washington, the deputy spokesman of the State Department spoke
of the United States possession of a moral authority, which he said it was
using to defuse the crisis. On the other hand, he justified the latest Israeli
463

excesses by emphasizing that the situation had been provoked by

terrorist hostage-taking. Rather apportioning blame, especially where it
doesnt lie fundamentally, the Bush Administration could use that authority
better by persuading the government of Mr Olmert to exercise restraint
wrote the News.
M B Naqvi opined that the US diplomacy is the second instrument
through which Israel not only gets away with murder and terrorizing the
entire Arab World. Israelis have deliberately destroyed the power generating
station and water distribution system. For how many days can the population
survive without water? Whoever may try to find a way to restore water, the
remarkable thing is that no Arab potentate has uttered a word of
condemnation; there is loud silence and demonstration of utter impotence.
Factually US wants to undo the Hamas victory in a free election.
For six months Israel and America have prevented the Hamas government
from functioning. Why? Because it does not recognize Israel or agreements
that Yasser Arafat or Abbas had entered into. Doubtless Hamas is a radical
pro-independence party; its charter has been liberation of Palestine. How can
it disown its Charter after being elected on that basis?
Why is Israel doing this? Because, US wants it to do so. The US
designs include a Middle East that is virtually run by Israel on its
behalf. The Israelis have been nurtured as a proxy for the Americans. The
responsibility for what the Israelis do belongs to Americans. It is not true
that the Israeli tail is wagging the American dog; the nationalist Israeli lobby
manipulates America and the poor dears are manipulated. This is nonsense.
The clear American thinking has been adequately articulated by
Neocons, some of them Jews. The Twenty-first Century Project is an
American design, not Jewish. Look at the US Democrats. Have they any
new idea? Do they reject the Twenty-first Century Project? Americans
apparently know of no other design for their country. If Democrats win, the
script would stay the same. Insofar as the Israelis are concerned, the
Democrats support is as firm, if not firmer, than that of the Republicans.
Galal Nassar said that to implement that scheme, Israel would have
first to quash the resistance and crush Palestinian human and combat
capabilities. Israel learned a lesson from its withdrawal from Gaza. It learned
that withdrawal and disengagement alone will not silence the Palestinians.
The resistance kept showering Israel with rockets and even carried out
operations inside Israels 1948 borders. This is why Israel decided to go after
the resistance. The capture of the Israeli soldier was just an excuse.
464

Although it knew that the Americans and Europeans didnt like

Hamas either, Israel waited for months to act against the movement. The
reason Israel waited is that it was hoping Hamas and Fatah would turn
on one another and spare it the task of bringing them down. Yet Israels
hopes for a full-fledged civil war were dashed once the factions agreed on a
document for national consensus.
Nicola Nasser wrote, the US-led Western diplomacy twice this week
used two UN forums to protect the military atrocities of the Israeli
occupying power. This follows a 50-year-old pattern that has pre-empted
peace, security and development in the whole Middle East region, with the
tragic and devastating effects we see every day They voted against an
Arab draft resolution at the UN Security Council in New York and an
Islamic draft resolution at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva.
The US vetoes have pre-empted peace, motivated the Israeli
expansionist military adventures, prolonged the Israeli occupation of Arab
land, undermined Arab peace initiatives, embarrassed Arab friends of the US
and the West, placed Arab states that had peace treaties with Israel in a
difficult position vis--vis their peoples, exacerbated the regional insecurity
and instability, and created an incubator-environment for terrorism.
Imtiaz Gul said, Israels arrogance and indifference obviously
flows from unparalleled political and military US backing, and the
undeclared by massive support from the Jewish Diaspora in Europe, the
Americas and some parts of Asia The bloody events since the
disappearance of an Israel soldier also underscore this attitude; for one
soldier, the Israelis have gunned down more than 50 Palestinians and reoccupied the Gaza Strip they had vacated in October last year.
Patrick OConnor wrote about American medias bias in the current
crisis. On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert admitted that he
intended to commit war crimes in Gaza, telling his cabinet that he wanted
no one to be able to sleep tonight in Gaza. But none of US three leading
news papers The New York Times, The Washington Post and LA Times
reported Olmerts statement, even though it was widely quoted around the
world.
In the last week, these three leading US papers also published
editorials strongly supporting Israels right to retaliate after the capture
of an Israeli soldier. Their editorials never mentioned a single element of
Israels brutal 10 month siege of Gaza.

465

Though collective punishment of Palestinian has historically been a

cornerstone of Israeli policy, and characterizes Israels siege of Gaza, the
US three leading papers have used the phrase collective punishment
just four times since heightened crisis began on June 25. Each paper cited
the same statement by Mahmoud Abbas once, and The New York Times also
quoted a Palestinian grocery store owner.
In taking positions on the current crisis, these newspapers editorial
boards completely erased Israels most recent human rights violations.
All three papers blamed only Hamas Israels disproportionate violence
Israels 39 year military occupation; the 176 Palestinians killed in 2006,
many of them civilians and children, compared to 16 Israelis killed; 8,300
Israeli shells launched into Gaza this year compared with 840 Palestinian
rockets launched towards Israel; on-going Israeli land seizure; or Israels
tightening siege of Gaza.
None of the editorials noted that Palestinians killed and captured
Israeli soldiers implementing a siege of Gaza. None noted the irony that
Palestinians were holding a single Israeli soldier prisoner, while Israel is
holding 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, many civilians held without due
process, and some enduring torture.

Arab and Muslim states failed to take any step to mend or counter
the US bias towards Israel. Apparently nobody can do anything. Israel is
militarily superior to all Arab states put together; Arab potentates are
behaving like scaled cats. Most Arab states have actually betrayed the
Palestinians and love dealing with the US and Israel in the name of prudence
and self-interest. There is precious little that one can do expect to raise ones
voice against inhuman treatment of an unarmed people by a super-armed
fanatical state opined M B Naqvi.
The question is: Is world opinion asleep or comatose? One especially
wants to know what the fair-minded people in the rest of the west (outside
US) think of what is going on in what was Palestine. Do they feel any
moral repugnance to what the Israeli colonialists are doing?
Khaleej Times wrote: How long the dance of death will go on, as the
rest of the world including the Arab-Muslim countries watches in morbid
fascination? Arab League and the OIC have done little more than issuing
regulation communiqus expressing their grave concern. The UN is
equally impotent. The Leagues pitiful appeals to the US and the West
seeking their intervention have been, not surprisingly, ignored Why
would anyone pay attention to the League, or OIC states for that matter,
466

when all they do is pass resolutions with little to show by way of

implementation? Is it any wonder then that despite representing the worlds
richest and strategically important region, the League is a lightweight on the
world stage?
Islamic states attempt at the UN has failed to produce the desired
result. Chris Marsden wrote, the resolution, which was brought by Islamic
states, expressed grave concern at the violations of the human rights of
the Palestinian people caused by the Israeli occupation, including the current
extensive Israeli military operations.
Twenty-nine of the councils 47 member states backed the resolution,
11 voted against, five abstained and two members were absent. Those
opposing the resolution included Britain, France and Germany. The US
representative to the UN in Geneva, Warren Tichenor, called the resolution
an unbalanced effort to single out and focus on Israel alone.

IMPLICATIONS
If things go on like this, Palestinians can look forward to endless
rounds of reckless Hamas provocations and inexorable Israeli responses.
That is why things must not be allowed to go on like this. It is not just Israel
that needs to be delivering that message to Hamas wrote the New York
Times. The paper meant that the message should be from all the Crusaders
and their cronies.
The Washington Post wrote that Abbas needs more help than he is
getting from Egypt, other Arab states and the United Nations. Instead of
fulminating about supposed Israeli war crimes, these actors ought to be
demanding that Hamas and its sponsors in Damascus and Tehran stop
their own acts of terrorism and war.
Uri Avnery opined that we have a different army now The action
proves, of course, an old military maxim: for every means of defence a
means of attack can be found, and vice versa. The security fence that
surrounds the Gaza Strip on all sidescan stop thieves and people looking
for work in Israel, but not the determined fighters who will always find
ways to cross it, whether from below or above.
He added, we dismantled the settlements there, and got the
Qassams on Sderot in return. Sharon has failed, so Olmert will fail
doubly It has not brought peace nearer, because it was coupled with an
open intention to annex large parts of the West Bank.
467

The Daily Star wrote that Israelis are suffering from a feeling of
existential insecurity. But the use of strong-arm tactics will not win them
the sense of security that they desire. True, Israel can control northern
Gaza and stamp out the militants who have recently launched rockets into
Israeli territory. But each aggressive Israeli military action will ensure that
new militants will emerge to take the place of those killed or jailed by Israeli
troops.
Mansoor Jafar was of the view that Israel wants a peace
settlement based not on human rights and international law, but rather on
the balance of power. It insists that Palestinians would be content with
whatever Israel gives them and demand nothing more.
Arab News wrote, because Israel, by its own account, is practicing
terrorism, Hamas is well within its right to battle back. The capturing of
Israeli soldier is a classic act of resistance sanctioned by international law.
The Israeli foreign minister himself admitted as much, saying those who
attack soldiers cannot be described as terrorists. Tzipi Livni did not complete
the sentence, but conversely, those who attack civilians are nothing but
terrorists.
Galal Nassar said, once the Palestinians were acting as one again, the
Israelis had no option but to send in tanks What Israel forgets is that
you cannot bomb a people into submission and that moral right is
ultimately stronger than the executioners menace.
Khaleej Times wrote, there is reportedly anger and frustration in the
Israeli army over Prime Minister Ehud Olmerts dogged refusal to accept the
ceasefire offer made by Hamas. To them, Olmerts adamant stance is
incomprehensible because it does not lead anywhere, except into blind
alleys that they have been negotiating with no particular aim for the past
several decades.
Olmert cannot go on like this forever though. Given the signs of
dissent in the army, it wouldnt be long before Olmert faces fire from
ordinary Israelis The Israeli leaders hardline-stand, far more hawkish
than his mentor Ariel Sharon, now may give a real hard time to his own
troops more than the Palestinians.
Ismail Haniyeh said, Israels unilateral movements of the past year
will not lead to peace. These acts the temporary withdrawal of forces
from Gaza, the walling of the West Bank are not strides toward resolution
but empty, symbolic acts that fail to address the underlying conflict.

468

The invasion of Gaza and the kidnapping of our leaders and

government officials are meant to undermine the recent accords reached
between the government party and our brothers and sisters in Fatah and
other factions, on achieving consensus for resolving the conflict. Yet Israeli
collective punishment only strengthens our collective resolve to work
together.
We present this clear message: if Israel will not allow Palestinians
to live in peace, dignity and national integrity, Israelis themselves will
not be able to enjoy those same rights. Meanwhile, our right to defend
ourselves from occupying soldiers and aggression is a matter of law, as
settled in the Fourth Geneva Convention. If Israel is prepared to negotiate
seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than secondary
ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna
(comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy land
still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for
all the Semitic people of the region. If Americans only knew the truth,
possibility might become reality.
The Washington Times talked of a larger war. It looks increasingly
doubtful that the events in Gaza will somehow be contained and that it will
end up being little more than the latest skirmish in the long running dispute
between Israel and the Palestinians. Iran, Syria, and Hamas give every
indication that they want the conflict to widen into a larger war. Nor
does Israel seem to be shy to respond.
Since January, when Palestinian voted for Hamas, the Palestinian
Authority has been governed by a terrorist organization whose raison detre
is the destruction of a neighbouring country. Now that Israel has concluded
(reasonably, in our view) that it cannot abide living next door to people
calling for its annihilation and firing rockets at its citizens, regional rogue
states like Syria and Iran are determined to widen the conflict.
Damascus responded by terming Israels act a provocation, and has
suggested the possibility of extending the war against Israel to the Golan
Heights which has been largely quiet since the Yom Kippur War. Israel
put its forces on alert in anticipation that Hezbollah, a proxy of Iran and
Syria, would heat up Israels border with Lebanon, which has become a
fortress with Israeli and Hezbollah checkpoints in very close proximity
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is reiterating his calls for Israels
destruction.

469

CONCLUSION
All the arrests and other actions seemed well-deliberated. Israel first
resorted to killings at beach and other attacks to instigate Palestinian
militants to retaliate. Once they kidnapped an Israel soldier, the whole
thing started unfolding.
Western media always chooses an incident which suits blaming
Palestinians and their supporters. In this case it chose the classic military
action by the Palestinian fighters in which they captured an Israeli soldier,
and unashamedly dubbed it as kidnapping, thus concocting a pretext to
justify Israeli terrorism.
Media tried to create an impression that all the brutalities of Israel,
since its illegitimate creation, have no relevance to prevalent situation.
Nobody mentioned even the recent events, like killings at the beach, which
forced the Palestinians to retaliate in manner they did.
Israel has been looking for an excuse, particularly after economic
sanctions failed to crumble Hamas government, to administer severe
collective punishment to the Palestinians for voting Hamas into power. The
intention of annihilating Hamas is no secret.
This is how it should be after the Arabs gave up military option and
surrendered in the name of peace deals. It also proves that the Crusaders are
bent upon destroying any capability of self-defence to Muslim. If
Palestinians or their Arab brothers had the capability to punish Israel for
terrorism perpetrated at the beach, it would not have dared to invade Gaza
once again. And, the Palestinian would not have attacked the border post and
kidnapped Israeli soldier. Astonishingly, yet, many Arab rulers consider the
US and the West as their friends.
14th July 2006

PEACE BUT NO PEACE

US Deputy Secretary called on Sherpao on 23 rd June and the host
informed the visitor that Pakistan was frontline state in war on terror. Three
days later, he claimed that Pakistan was no longer a haven for terrorists, but
killings in tribal areas continued.
The prejudices of Crusaders against Pakistan remained in place. On 1 st
July, it was reported that United States would amend law to accommodate

470

nuclear deal with India. About a week later, Washington feared technology
transfer to China as Congress was asked for sale of F-16 to Pakistan.
The peace process with India was restricted to exchange of views by
courtesy of media. The composite dialogue generally went like this;
Musharraf proposed demilitarization and Indian Defence Minister said no
demilitarization.
At home front, the ARD-member parties signed the Charter of
Democracy on 2nd July. A few days later, Musharraf, while addressing a
public gathering in Gilgit, said that he cant contest election as a soldier and
urged people to vote for PML-Q, if they support him. Situation in
Baluchistan remained tense forcing Musharraf to warn the terrorists.
Nothing positive happened in the context of soft image.

SERVING CRUSADERS
The war for Afghan peace continued against Pushtoon terrorists.
Following incidents were reported during the period:
Troops killed two militants and captured five in an encounter in North
Waziristan on 18th June. Couple of days later, militants denied killing
the journalist.
At least three FC soldiers were killed and three wounded in roadside
bombing in North Waziristan on 21st June. Four soldiers were killed
and three wounded in helicopter crash and three policemen were shot
dead by miscreants near Bannu. Five foreigners, including four Turks
were arrested in Quetta with suspected links to al-Qaeda.
On 22nd June, militants claimed downing the helicopter; ISPR denied.
Security forces arrested 11 Afghans in Quetta linked to al-Qaeda.
Gunmen abducted a tribesman from Wana.
Members of NWFP Assembly from MMA received threatening letters
from al-Qaeda-linked militants urging them to either publicly
announce their support for them or face the consequences.
Three soldiers were killed in attack by militants in North Waziristan
on 25th June. Militants announced one-month truce in Waziristan.
Seven soldiers of Army and FC were killed and scores of others
wounded in suicide car bomb attack on a check post near Miran Shah
on 26th June. Six men involved in criminal activities were killed in
471

attack on residence of Guldar Khan in North Waziristan. Taliban have

been carrying out such attacks. Authorities arrested 35 Afghans from
Waziristan and deported them to Afghanistan.
On 27th June, the tribal newsmen in Jamrud condemned arrest of three
journalists who wrote facts about Mangal Bagh and his Lashkar-eIslami in defiance of directives of political authorities.
On 29th June, authorities released 50 tribesmen. Miranshah tribesmen
vowed to respect one-month truce. Professor Khurshid criticized the
decision to send more troops to tribal areas.
Two persons were killed by gunmen in South Waziristan on 30 th June.
Taliban publicly executed a murderer in North Waziristan.
On 3rd July, six soldiers of FC were killed and three wounded in
roadside bombing near Timergara. Next day, about one hundred tribal
elders were freed in South Waziristan.
Seventy Mangal Bagh (Lashkar-e-Islami) accomplices were arrested
in crackdown in Tirrah Valley by 5 th July. Next day, Lashkar-e-Islami
men set a house ablaze in Bara.
Leaflets purportedly issued by the Taliban asked Islamic militants in
North Waziristan not to fight the Pakistan Army.
On 10th July, troops in North Waziristan opened fire and killed one
tribesman and wounded two others after their convoy came under
roadside bombing.
Pro-government tribal elder and a soldier were killed in Bajaur
Agency in separate incidents on 11th July. Tribesmen agreed to
ceasefire in Mohmand Agency.
On 12th July, a suspected US spy of foreign origin was killed in
Peshawar and four persons linked to militants were arrested. Aurakzai
said that ceasefire was a step toward peace in FATA. Next day, it was
reported that Maulana Faqir Mohammad escaped arrest, who had
addressed a public gathering in Bajaur Agency and vowed to continue
jihad and rejected allegation of terrorism.
The government freed two tribal elders in South Waziristan on 15th
July. Militants and tribal elders in Bajaur Agency agreed to restore
peace.

472

On 26th June, US army spokesman said there is no terrorist camp in

Pakistan. Next day, Rice met Musharraf and praised his contribution in war
on terror; she also told him to fulfill his promise to hold democratic
elections next year. Defence Minister said Pakistan was prepared to deploy
more troops on western border.
On 5th July, Foreign Office spokesperson took exception to UN
officials remarks about Islamabads role in Afghanistan, but very next day
Musharraf vowed to smoke out miscreants in tribal areas. US Envoy
responded by hailing Pakistans role in war on terror.
On 11th July, Rumsfeld urged Pakistan and Europe to do more for
Afghanistan. Four days later Kasuri announced that Pakistan has 10,000
reasons for Afghan peace. The same day, a US report hailed Pakistans role
in terror war. That was how Musharrafs resolve to fight against terrorism
was kept intact.
Kabul was not obliged to reciprocate the forced labour rendered by
Pakistan. Karzai once again said that the world was overlooking the sources
of terrorism. On 22nd June, Afghanistan increased duty on Pakistani
products from 30 to 50 percent. Next day, Spanta made a maiden trip to
Pakistan as foreign minister and wanted more cooperation. Meanwhile,
Pakistani prisoners kept rotting in Afghan jails and Sherpao said efforts were
underway for their release. And, India mulled sending troops to Afghanistan,
as reported Mariana Baabar.
Prof Khurshid Ahmad observed, Pakistans entire foreign policy
revolves around the US-led war on terror. We need to come out of the
quagmire the United States has plunged us in. We are against terrorism
but it is important to determine what are the causes, factors and conditions
without whose reform we cannot check the trend of use of force politics.
Farhattullah Babar wrote, Pakistan is a major ally of the international
community in the war on terror. If the international community cannot
ignore the legal rights of suspects, how can its major ally continue to ignore
legal rights of its citizens as it pursues the war on terror? The court verdicts
in the US and the UK should therefore bring into focus the need for a
judicial or parliamentary review of our own laws dealing with the war
on terror. But a review can begin only if one knows the existing laws on the
statute. What are the laws? The laws remain the same which were once
mentioned by the former governor Malik Amir Muhammad Khan by
twirling his moustches.

473

Brian Cloughley asked has Pakistan done enough. I think the

answer is no, Crumpton told a news briefing in the Afghan capital, Kabul
on May 6 2006, Not only al-Qaeda, but Taliban leadership are primarily in
Pakistan, and the Pakistanis know that, Crumpton added.
For the information of Mr Crumpton, since 2004 Pakistan has lost
700 para-military and army soldiers killed in action in North West Frontier
Province while combating Taliban fighters and the tribes which support the
Taliban (which is almost all 6 million of them). By any definition of doing
enough, this would appear to be a reasonable sacrifice on the part of
Pakistan in its support for the Bush crusade in Afghanistan. And I can state
that the Pakistan Army and the Frontier Corps, whose soldiers have died
in support of US objectives, are not altogether impressed by people like
Mr Crumpton who deride their sacrifice and have no idea of the
complexities of life in the border region and no notion of how difficult it is
to deal with the tribes.

Prejudices against Pakistan which claims to be strategic partner

and frontline state in war on terror were reflected in some actions during
the period. Most conspicuous of them was in the context of progress made in
finalization of nuclear deal with India.
On 23rd June, a leading lawmaker urged India to act responsibly and
not to back Irans nuclear ambitions; otherwise nuclear deal would be
jeopardized. India urged that the US should adhere to original commitments
and avoid side-stepping to link the deal with Irans nuclear programme.
US responded positively, on 29th June Congress Committee approved
nuclear deal with India with 37-5 vote and the amendment which called for
India to sign NPT was also dropped. Next day, second panel backed USIndia nuclear deal. And United States showed willingness to amend law to
accommodate nuclear deal with India. Kasuri, with controlled sigh of
helplessness, said that US would eventually see logic of nuke deal.
US pressure on IPI gas pipeline project continued, but Pakistan kept
denying any pressure. On 22nd June, Ministry of Petroleum said gas pricing
with Iran was still under discussion. About three weeks later, it was reported
that top leadership would have to intervene to break the deadlock on gas
price. Meanwhile, Washington feared technology transfer to China as
Congress was asked for sale of F-16 to Pakistan.
On 7th July, JI condemned Peshawar-based US Consulates reaction to
Fateh offered by the NWFP Assembly for the departed soul of Zarqawi and

474

termed Consulates letter to the Speaker as violation of diplomatic norms

and interference in internal affairs.
Nasim Zehra, while viewing the progress on nuclear deal, wrote, a
foreign policy initiative that had numerous influential critics now has
bipartisan support. It was carried in the House committee by a 37 to 5 vote
and in the Senate committee by a 16 to 2 vote. Significantly, it was the
convergence of interests of the many India-linked stakeholders and
players within the US power scene that provided the rationale for the
bipartisan support.
The conditions imposed on the administration by Congress in
implementing the nuclear deal, do not dilute the impact of the historic
shift in US strategic policy in Asia. It will significantly strengthen Indo-US
commercial, military and political ties. In Washington the big picture
effects of this deal are being compared with the US-China opening under US
President Richard Nixon.
Indian analysts being mindful of Americas track record, however,
remained apprehensive about various aspects of the nuclear deal. Praful
Bidwai, before commenting on the impact of the deal, talked of some myths
about the deal:
Myth 1: The deal will cap Indias nuclear weapons programme.
Reality: It wont! Under the agreed civilian-military separation, India
will put only 14 of its 22 power reactors under IAEA safeguards.
Myth 2: India has capitulated to US pressure against nuclear testing;
the deal is tantamount to signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Reality: India has made no greater commitment than its unilateral
testing moratorium of 1998.
Myth 3: The deal imposes symmetrical obligations on India and the
US. Reality: India isnt treated on par with any NPT-recognized
Nuclear Weapons-States.
Myth 4: India will be subjected to harsh IAEA inspections you
cant move even a chair without the inspectors permission (former
AEC chairman M R Srinivasan). Reality: Indias experience at
Tarapur and Rajasthan hasnt been one of intrusive IAEA inspections.
Myth 5: Indias commitments under the Congress resolutions and the
July and March agreements are identical. Reality: They arent. Under

475

the original plan, India would negotiate a safeguards agreement with

IAEA after US Congress ratification. Now, it must do so before that.
Myth 6: The deal has no larger foreign policy implications for India.
The demand that India must help Washington in isolating Iran and
comply with Americas non-proliferation objectives is non-binding.
Reality: Implicit in the deal and motivating it centrally, is
harmonization of Indias foreign policy with US objectives as part of
its strategic partnership.
The analyst opined, the US is recruiting India as a junior partner
in its global system of alliances. India will be asked to contain China and
help the US dominate Eurasian landmass. Undermining Indias policy
independence is a huge achievement.
The only gain for India will be the legitimization of its nuclear
arsenal and access to civilian nuclear materials. But nuclear power, as the
Column has argued, is not a desirable energy path. Its expensive, hazardous
and unsustainable. In a subsequent article, the analyst said that Western
euphoria over India betrays total ignorance of realities like the 100,000
farmers suicide.
Yashwant Sinha wrote that the government has repeatedly told us that
the Indo-US nuclear deal is all about nuclear energy and not at all about nonproliferation For the US Congress, the entire objective of the Indo-US
nuclear deal is non-proliferation and not development of nuclear energy in
India.
The separation of our facilities into civilian and military would be
done by us voluntarily, and in exercise of our sovereign authority This
autonomous Indian decision taken by us voluntarily and in exercise of
sovereign authority will have to be submitted to the US Congress for their
scrutiny and approval.
Subsequent developments have proven beyond doubt that India is
not being recognized as a nuclear weapons state, it will have the status of
only a non-nuclear weapons state. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
in her testimony on April 5, 2006 before the US Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, had clearly said, India is not and is not going to become a
member of the NPT (as) a nuclear weapons state.
Bharat Karnad said, in the wake of the US House and Senate Bills
being voted in committee, it should be clear to everyone that the two
principles of reciprocity and parity Manmohan Singh had promised in
476

Parliament, were not adhered to in the negotiations leading to the final

deal. Reciprocity, pertaining to a system of procedural interlinks, was meant
to reassure each country about sensitive actions taken by the other in
lockstep. But Washington has loaded its legislative measures with
conditionalities that have stood the good faith element in the Joint
Statement on its head making reciprocity meaningless.
Khaleej Times wrote that containment of China was hyped
vigorously during nuclear signing of the deal, but Delhi and Beijing have
agreed to reopen the historic Nathu-la Pass in the Himalayas to allow border
trade between the two countries after a gap of more than four decades.
It is expected that by 2010, the total trade across Nathu-la Pass could
go up to $1 billion. In fact it could even cross these projections, given the
current economic growth of both China and India The re-opening of
Nathu-la Pass is much more than reviving an old trade route. It
symbolizes the turnaround in Sino-India relations over the past few years.
As regards IPI gas project, Irans Deputy Oil Minister visited
Islamabad during the period. He said, the price suggested by India and
Pakistan is almost half of the price we offered. If the two governments
intend to subsidize their domestic gas, there is no reason for Iran to pay the
subsidy.
The reason behind suggesting low price is not the subsidy. It lies
far away from New Delhi and Islamabad. Both countries want to kill the
snake and also save the stick. He rightly warned the strategic partners of
America that Iran will not sell its gas to them in case dispute with US on
nuclear issue gets resolved.
Shireen M Mazari criticized the interfering in judicial matters of
Pakistan. There is the issue hitting the newspapers that relates to the murder
of a taxi driver by a British citizen, in Rawalpini, who has subsequently been
given the death penalty. Of course, the European media has raised a hue and
cry regarding the trial itself, along with Amnesty International, and there
seems to be an absurd assumption that because the trial was in Pakistan
it must, by definition, have been unfair or flawed.
She accused the European countries in general and Britain in
particular of double standards, quoting some executions of the British
citizens in the US where the British kept silent. She added, what message is
being sent out to Europeans that they will be treated above the law in
countries like Pakistan? Did the president of the EU Parliament write an
equally forceful note to President Bush in the case of the now-executed
477

British citizens as he has done to the Pakistani President, to whom he has

sent what can only be regarded as an ominous note, stating that the
carrying out of this execution will cast a shadow over the reputation of
Pakistan as it would clearly represent a rare combination of excessive
cruelty and profound injustice.
The Crusaders were too engrossed in sorting out Muslims and they
had no time to take note of the plight of the Christians in India. Perhaps,
they overlooked such incidents because India has been embraced as strategic
partner in the ongoing war against Muslims. Purnima S Tripathi wrote about
attacks on Christians in Madhya Pardesh.
This was the experience of a group of Christians in Bhopal in April.
Bajrand Dal activists stormed into the house of Rev San Francis where a
prayer meeting was on and beat up those present for perpetuating
conversion to Christianity. Eighteen of them were dragged to the police
station. Although it became clear that no conversion had taken place, the
authorities did not take immediate action against the assailants.
On June 5, when Indira Iyengar, who represents the Christian
community on the Senate Minority Commission, addressed a press
conference in Bhopal to highlight the plight of two tribal women from
Kargone who were allegedly raped by some right-wing activists on May 28
for converting to Christianity three years ago, she was heckled.
If such blatant attacks, that too in full media glare, are possible in the
State capital, the situation in the interior areas can only be imagined
Attacks on Christians have gone up sharply in the past three years, says the
Archbishop of Bhopal. The reaction of the civilized world would have
been quite hostile if such incidents had taken place in Pakistan.
The government of Pakistan, conscious of the attitude of the West, has
been trying to look eastward in search other avenues of partnership like
SCO. Ansar Mahmood Bhatti said, Pakistan seems to be well on track in
terms of its progress towards full membership of the SCO and the
positive overtures to this effect both from Russia and China have reinforced
Pakistans bid. The Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his article published
in the press on the occasion, had categorically admitted that inclusion of
countries like Pakistan would definitely add force to the organization.

PEACE PROCESS

478

The composite dialogue made no progress at all. Talks on Wuller

Barrage in Islamabad ended inconclusively on 23rd June as both sides did not
show flexibility, but Indian Water Secretary said, I think it is good that talks
are going on.
The process of confidence building registered some progress. On
20 June, second trans-Kashmir bus service between Poonch and Rawalakot
was launched. Ten days later, 38 Pakistani and 19 Indian prisoners were
released. On 11th July, Pakistan and India inked MoU for release of funds to
New Delhi for victims of earthquake. Three days later, it was reported that
FIA had deported Shivdasan Raman Vallppil, who was wanted by India and
had informed India and Interpol before sending him to Dubai.
th

Praful Bidwai quoted three incidents which according to him were

against the spirit of confidence building. One: Pakistans immediate
response to Indias announcement that it would back Shashi Tharoor for the
post of the post of secretary-general of the United Nations. Two: Denial of a
visa to Indian poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar to attend a PTV programme. Three:
Indias nuclear deal with the United States and her energetic effort to have it
cleared quickly in Congress.
Pakistan denied that the Indian poet was refused a visa. On 9 th July,
India test fired long range Agni III missile; Samarmand termed it as failure.
Next day, Indias space programme suffered a setback when rocket carrying
satellite disintegrated seconds after the launch.
A serial bombing in Mumbai on 11th July proved a serious setback to
confidence building. Seven explosions ripped through commuter trains in
Mumbai, killing 163 people and injuring 464 others. While still waiting for
clues, the fingers were raised towards Lashkar-e-Taiba and Students Islamic
Movement of India (SIMI).
Next day, Manmohan said that India stood united and would never be
beaten by terrorists. New Delhi slammed Kasuri for trying to link blasts to
Kashmir. Foreign Office said Kasuri was misreported. Death toll in Mumbai
blasts rose to 200. Pakistan tightened security after Mumbai blasts. A big
power was behind blasts, said Indias anti-terror chief.
On 13th July, Police named two suspects in Mumbai blasts. About 350
people were detained across the country. A man, probably linked to alQaeda, claimed the responsibility and urged Indian Muslims to wage jihad
against Indian government. Blaming Pakistan for bombings is unfair, said
Kasuri. Foreign Office offered help for probing Mumbai bombs.
479

Next day, Police probing claimed that al-Qaeda has set up a wing in
the Valley. Fear hovered over Indian Muslims after the blasts. Manmohan
openly accused Pakistan of bomb blasts in Mumbai. He warned that the
composite dialogue would be affected. On 15th July, Shaym Saran hinted that
talks with Pakistani counterpart, scheduled to start on 20 th July, wont be
held soon. Indian media resorted to Pakistan-bashing as another 250 people
were held in Mumbai.
Meanwhile perpetration of state terrorism against Kashmiris
continued; following incidents of violence were reported:
Two ex-ministers were held in sex scam on 20th June. Two days later,
one person was killed and 16 wounded in a grenade attack in Sopore.
Prime accused in sex scandal, former Additional Advocate General
Anil Kumar Sethi, surrendered before a Jammu court.
Four freedom fighters and a policeman were killed in violence on 25 th
June. Next day, eight people, including four militants were killed in
shootouts.
On 27th June, six people, including a soldier and a policeman, were
killed in separate incidents on violence.
A musician was taken as suicide member and shot dead by CRP on
30th June. Next day, at least two dozen people were injured in baton
charge in Srinagar when they protested against killing of the musician.
Six persons, including an Indian soldier, were killed in violence on 2 nd
July. Next day, nine people, including one Indian soldier, were killed
in three different clashes.
On 4th July, Gilani was once again put under house arrest. Two days
later, two policemen were arrested for killing musician. Kashmir
Centre in Brussels faced threat of attacks by Hindu extremists.
A policeman and four civilians were killed and 45 other wounded in
grenade attack at a shrine on 8th July. Next day three children were
injured in an explosion in the village of Bamai.
One boy was killed and three wounded in accidental grenade blast in
Kulgam district on 10th July. Next day, eight people were killed and 40
wounded in grenade attack in Srinagar.

480

 On 12th July, Police claimed killing a commander of militant outfit.

Another militant was killed in Doda district. Three soldiers were
wounded in grenade attack in Baramulla.
Indian troops claimed killing two fighters on 14th July in a clash near
in Baramulla.

Kashmiri leaders kept speaking for redress of grievances of the

people of occupied land. On 26th June, High Court Bar Association decided
to urge the judiciary to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Chief
Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad who equated sex scam with prostitution in New
Delhi and Mumbai. Of course, prostitution is widespread in urban India as is
indicated by the number of HIV cases, but there is one clear difference; in
big cities of India this is voluntary, but in IHK it is encouraged for
promotion of tourism.
Next day, Gilani called on Pakistan to review its dialogue policy with
India. He said continuation of such a process tantamount to applying salt on
the wounds of innocent Kashmiris. He added, I want to tell the Pakistani
leadership in clear terms that you started a dialogue process with India in
January 2004 and have repeatedly admitted that there is no progress vis--vis
the resolution of the Kashmir issue. So, there is a need to rethink and
reconsider that policy.
M Ismail Khan highlighted some complicated aspects of the Core
Issue. Unlike Gilgit-Baltistan (Northern Areas) both Azad Kashmir and
Jammu & Kashmir (including Ladakh) are constitutional entities, so when
India makes an incursion into Siachen it becomes pre-emptive for
repositioning of troops in a disputed area of the former princely state. When
Pakistan tries to keep control of few hills overlooking Kargil, it is
trespassing Indias and Jammu & Kashmirs constitutional limits. Thus,
without a constitutional cover Islamabad cannot claim sovereignty over
the part it holds. It may be presumptive but that is how the world looks at it
and that is how the international community has responded to the Siachen
and Kargil conflicts over the years.
In the current situation Indias insistence to sign off the authenticated
actual ground position would mean freezing the status quo it altered
militarily to its advantage in 1984, an approach most likely to push the
dialogue process towards a dead end.
What is at stake is not just Siachens river of ice and snow, but the
livelihoods of millions of human beings downstream who depend on these
481

glaciers. It has been around 22 years since the Pakistani and Indian armies
became locked in a zero sum game on the 72 kilometers long and 20,000feet-high glacier, where soldiers are cramped on both sides of the glacier,
creating tons of pollution.
In another review, he wrote, from Pakistans standpoint two events
seem to have led to the stalemate, (in Indo-Pak peace process) the fresh
US-India matrimony and the series of bombings in different parts of India,
which provided additional ammunition for hardliners to press Manmohan
Singh to harden his stand on Kashmir. Worst still, the Indian establishment
might be assuming that the worst is over, and it can move ahead with its
global aspirations regardless of the Kashmir conundrum, hoping that the
dispute will fizzle out.
AG Noorani wrote, some in our (Indian) establishment hold that
Kashmir can and should be settled without any accord with Pakistan
by altering what is hideously called the ground realities, through CBMs
and otherwise. But let alone the alienated populous, even pro-Union parties
like the NC and PDP insist on an Indo-Pak settlement. Will Pakistan go
along with CBMs endlessly?
Since September 25, 2004, when Singh and Musharraf agreed to
explore options, the options have narrowed. Considerable common
ground has been developed. The two sticking points the LoC and joint
management are susceptible to compromises.
Jyoti Malhotra said, at the people-to-people level between both
Kashmiris, participants argued, the situation has become as bad as to be
critical. The bus that was flagged off with such fanfare last year between
Srinagar and Muzaffarabad across the Line of Control, for example, hardly
carried any passengers any more, because it took months for Kashmiris to be
first cleared by the Indian authorities and then by their Pakistani
counterparts! It was perhaps better, the participants sorrowfully argued, not
to have raised expectations in the first place; if at all both governments were
going to commit them to such slow torture.
Nirupama Subramanian expressed optimism. There have been net
gains from the peace process for both sides: the ceasefire on the LoC is
certainly one, and the expanded people-to-people contacts are another. These
have built a strong constituency for peace in both India and Pakistan.
Prem Shankar Jha commented on the drowning of schoolchildren in
Wullar Lake. Boating, I was told, is not allowed in Wullar Lake, especially
in the afternoon. But the navy took 45 children out on a boat meant for eight.
482

In one version the two boatmen were drunk and tried to molest one or
more of the girls, and the ensuing struggle overturned the boat. A second
version had it that an army motorboat had raced dangerously close by. Its
wake set off a panic and caused the boat to overturn. When the boat
overturned, the two navy men swam ashore leaving the children to drown,
ignoring their friends tearful entreaties. It was local fishermen who saved
over half of them, and the others perished.
When the bereaved families and other residents of Handwara went
to the lake next day to pull out the remaining bodies, the army/navy
would not let them, and instead opened fire. Two young students were
killed but the army claimed that they were militants and had fired first,
wounding a soldier. The lame but only too familiar excuse was the
proverbial last straw and sent the whole Kashmir into a hartal
Writing on Mumbai bombing, the News said, a day after the
dastardly attacks, Indias Minister of State for External Affairs Anand
Sharma was quoted by the Times of India as saying that Pakistan should
fully join the battle in isolating and eliminating terrorists He added that
there was a global network of militant organizations operating from
Pakistani territory. and that he would expect Islamabad to deliver when
credible evidence is given to it.
Regrettably, large sections of the Indian media tend to be more
hawkish than South Block itself and are often quick to see Pakistan behind
everything horrible that happens in India. This does not help, not at least
because an investigation into Mumbais blasts is currently underway, and
especially when a peace dialogue is underway between the two countries.
Some reports have suggested that the investigators are also exploring
the possibility that al-Qaeda may be behind the blasts, because of the
similarities to the blasts in Madrid in March 2004 If that be the case, the
Indians should feel happy that militant groups have accepted India as
strategic partner of the Crusaders.
Sitaram Yechury opined that in this context, another issue needs to be
considered dispassionately India has succeeded in not attracting the attention
of global terrorist outfits like al-Qaeda to conduct diabolic acts. However,
with the increasing proclivity of the UPA government to change our
independent foreign policy to make dovetail into the USs global strategic
interests, such dangers may appear on our horizon Apart from
undermining Indias independent and sovereign status, such shifts will
expose India to a greater vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
483

It must be borne in mind that fundamentalism of all varieties feed

off each other. Minority fundamentalism and majority communalism cannot
survive without constantly feeding and strengthening each other Lashkare-Tayyeba had, on the eve of the 1999 elections, stated: The BJP suits us.
Within a year they have made us into a nuclear and missile power.
Shafqat Mahmood was of the view that such acts of terror only help
those who do not want issues between the two countries to be settled and
if we are looking for a reason, this is the obvious one There are those who
do not want peace and would do anything to scuttle it.
There may be elements here who feel that the jihadi option should be
kept alive in case the disputes do not get resolved. They are wrong and
completely out of touch with the realities of our time. Our government must
do whatever it can to suppress any remnant of the jihadi network that still
exists.
The News, in subsequent editorial, wrote, the fact of the matter is that
certain sections of Indian media and the security establishment seem
bent on blaming Pakistan for what has happened. This is the sense one gets
from the statements emanating from across the border.
As far as the Indian media is concerned, the usual unnamed official
sources got into action this while the investigators were still going
through the wreckage of the trains by laying the blame on to Pakistan.
Fingers were pointed, citing these anonymous official sources, as Lashkare-Taiba (it and Hizbul Mujahideen have both denied any involvement and
have also condemned the bombings).
The Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) has also been
blamed but Indian authorities should know that this is a mostly homegrown organization concentrated in Maharashtra, fuelled, some say, by the
overtly anti-Muslim communal politics of that province. Even here, media
reports suggest that the official view seems to link SIMI with the Lashkar,
the latter apparently playing the role of guide and overseer.
There are many groups and elements on both sides that are also
opposed to the peace dialogue between India and Pakistan. Some of these
elements may be found in the respective governments and security
apparatuses (and some have very strong base in Maharashtra), which is why
the Indian government should be absolutely sure of the identity of the
attackers before heaping blame on Pakistan.

484

Foqia Sadiq Khan asked, what are terrorists trying to achieve by

killing and maiming innocent commuters in the financial hub of India? A
number of conjectures are floating: (a) senseless violence, (b) Muslim
extremist groups with Kashmir connection such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba
trying to destabilize the Indo-Pakistan peace process, (c) the Mumbai
underworld launching an assault with the help of transitional terror network.
The Indian government, human rights groups and international
community need to do all they can to stop a massacre, if such a situation
arises. If the Western governments can launch a war to halt murder of
citizens in Bosnia and Kosovo, it can exert pressure on India to avert
bloodletting of its Muslim minority.

HOME FRONT
There were some ripples in domestic political scenario. On 24th
June All Parties Peace Conference, convened by Jamaat-e-Islami, demanded
of the government to stop patronizing MQM. About a week later, the ARDmember parties signed the Charter of Democracy. The meeting called for
resignation of Musharraf and Shaukat over court verdict on Steel Mills
privatization case.
MPs of JI handed over resignations to Qazi Hussain. Punjab Chief
Minister reiterated that Musharraf would be re-elected as president in
uniform. Durrani strongly criticized demand of ARD for resignation of
President and Prime Minister.
On 4th July, Nawaz Sharif said if United States was so keen to fight
the war on terror, then it should first fight Musharraf. Next day, Shujaat
threatened that the term of current Assembly could be extended. Musharraf
while addressing a public gathering in Gilgit said, I cant contest election as
a soldier and urged people to vote for PML if they support him.
Eight-member CCI was reconstituted on 6 th July with two members
from each province; Shaukat representing Punjab. Shujaat again said the
resignations would be countered with extension of assemblies. Nawaz was
not worth his salt as PM, said Musharraf on 13th July. Nawaz said Musharraf
was maligning him.
Shafqat Mahmood wrote, General Musharraf will do well to
understand that this fake democracy he has put together is fooling no one
as the world still considers him a military dictator. The next election is

485

crucial for him but only if it is free and fair. If it is rigged like the last one,
then the elusive legitimacy that Musharraf so keenly seeks will not come. He
has no choice now but to go for a genuine election and take his chances.
He added, there is a fond hope that like Nepal, the people of this
country will rise and forcibly remove a ruler who has no popular sanction or
legal right to be where he is. The chance of such a strategy succeeding in the
short run is doubtful but the opposition has no choice. If this were a
democracy, it could spend all its energies on gearing up for an election. But,
its analysis is that free and fair elections are not possible under Musharraf.
Public pressure is the only thing that could change this scenario so it is
preparing for it.
M B Naqvi was of the view that the Musharraf regime is facing a
serious crisis. It has to organize two elections between October 2007 and
February 2008: one national general election and another to the office of the
president. The postponement is no real option.
The difficulties that President Pervez Musharraf faces are obvious
If he loses either election, all hell will break loose. The whole political
system he has built will collapse in a matter of hours. This will not be good
for his safety and security. He has, therefore, to win, no matter how.
As it happens, any military coup maker can get himself elected in a
series of elections with the help of intelligence agencies and the bureaucracy.
These agencies are supposed to have perfected a technique in which a
ruling junta cannot lose an election, given political backwardness of
common voters.
On 27th June, Islamabad experienced Basmati aroma. The News
observed that Rice was in clear breach of protocol during her brief visit to
Pakistan. On her way for talks with President Musharraf, she told the press
conference that President Pervez Musharraf should hold democratic, free
and fair elections.
Two days later, it wrote, Pakistan should not require advice or
goading from the outside world on democracy, especially from a country
that seems to have considerable double standards in such matters, but the
perception is that the government in Islamabad tend to listen to Washington
very carefully. It is, however, another matter that they never publicly admit
that they do this, which is fine because it would be demening for them so far
as domestic public opinion is concerned. However, to claim that democratic
norms are flourishing in this country is to present a picture that isnt there.

486

Gulf News said, Rice, in seeking to publicize US concerns over free

and fair elections, must remember Musharraf has already taken a huge risk
in supporting the US-led war on terror, in the face of a Taliban resurgence.
Whatever the USs concerns and there is very little Washington can do, in
the circumstances it would have been far better to have aired them when
they met face to face.
Burhanuddin Hasan retaliated: The US democracy which is
considered the biggest and the best in the world has badly faltered after
9/11 The US President is behaving like a bull in a China shopdenied all
accountability to Congress, courts, and international conventions and
institutions, putting the president above the law of the land. Apart from
giving advice to Pakistan Dr Rice should also look at the sorry state of
democracy in her own country.
Shireen M Mazari dwelled on the issue. The fact that the so-called
free world, with its leader the US, is content to watch in silence as Israel
moves closer to a potential genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza,
shows the irrelevancy of democracy in the wider agendas of these
states In these circumstances, it is unfortunate that a group of Pakistani
Americans sought to visit Israel at the precise moment when Israel was
conducting its onslaught against the hapless Palestinians.
More important, from a Pakistani perspective, is the sudden focus on
democracy education by all and sundry for us Pakistanis The donor
agencies and the US have decided that they may find a more receptive
audience in Pakistan, than elsewhere, to their version of democracy
education.
This is in keeping with the new trend amongst donors to focus more
of their funds on advocacy than on service delivery. This gives a high profile
to the donors with seminars in five-star hotels in the main urban centres and
also allows them to push their agendas through in terms of our national
policies.
We now have the Womens Development and Youth Affairs Ministry
undertaking a Norwegian-funded project entitled Womens Political
School, in coordination with the UNDP. This is intended to mould our
women councilors into leaders. Equally important, why has it been assumed
that the only our women councilors need to be educated? Having seen the
male variety, I think it is presumptions to assume that the women are less
politically aware than their male counterparts. More disturbing is the issue
of how different moulding really is from indoctrinating?
487

But these days, advocacy of all sorts is the name of the game in
Islamabad. The result is that some organizations with highly contentious
agendas have also moved in. For instance, it has been reported that a socalled US expert is coming all the way from the US to deliver a special
lecture to women senators on democracy and the role of women lawmakers.
If I were woman senator I would be insulted at the assumption that I
needed to be lectured on such basic issues by an American expert
Who is this expert? Ah, therein lies the rub. It is Ms Judy Van Rest who is
the executive vice president of the International Republican Institute (IRI).
So whats the big deal?
The issue is not so simple because the IRIs agenda is highly
controversial. The Institute is loosely affiliated with the Republican Party
now of Neocon infamy but it receives US government funding for socalled International democratization programmes Most of the staff of the
IRI has strong links to right-wing think-tanks and institutes as well as the
neocons.
Given this background, it is not surprising to find the IRI being
linked to political upheavals and attempted coups in Latin America. For
instance, after April 2002 aborted coup against Venezuelan President
Chavez, who has been highly critical of the US government, many accused
the Bush Administration of having been involved in this attempted ouster.
In Haiti, in the first year of the Bush Administration, the IRI received
USAID funds to effectively work with Haitian leader Aristides opponents
and the IRI point man Haiti was a Stanley Lucas who had earlier been
closely linked to Haitian military.
We now have US organizations moving into Pakistan, who have been
working with the US government in Iraq. One prominent organization is the
Lincoln Group which has been working in Iraq and is now in Pakistan,
and is one of three companies that are awarded a lucrative contract from the
Pentagon, for the conduct of psy ops to improve foreign public opinion
about the US, especially the US military.
Qazi Hussain Ahmad was in search leadership with a clear vision
which could create hope and end the prevalent disenchantment and fear in
the masses. Political workers should be able to infuse the masses with their
spirit. In order to achieve this objective, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal is
striving to unite all opposition parties on one platform for a massive
movement.

488

Burhanuddin Hasan had already found the missing leadership. Only

the MQM, which is the party of the professionals and working people, with
no jagirs, no haris and no slaves can give the country a clean governance
based on a fair justice system, honesty, integrity and austerity, which are the
cornerstones of economic prosperity and the moral and ethical values on
which Pakistan was founded.
Rahimullah Yusufzai noted that the season of changing loyalties is
about to set in. Politicians unhappy with parties they were previously
aligned are watching every move by President Pervez Musharraf in the hope
of understanding the shape of things in the post-election period. Many would
like to align with him in case he is strong enough to retain his power. But
they would want to avoid his company if he is on the way out.
During the period under review, following incidents of terrorism and
counter-terrorism were reported from Baluchistan:
Security forces posts were attacked in Kahlu and Sibi on 23 rd June.
Two days later, one person was wounded when four rockets were fired
at Quetta.
Two levy men were kidnapped from Naushki on 26th June. Next day,
one FC soldier was killed in landmine blast near Dera Bugti. Two gas
pipelines were blown up in Pirkoh area.
On 28th June, two gas pipelines were blown up near Sui and electricity
pylon was blown up near Dera Murad Jamali.
On 29th June, Akbar Bugtis deputy, Bangan Khan and his 22
accomplices surrendered and sought general pardon. Next day, two
levy men were wounded in landmine blast in Maiwand.
Quetta-Taftan rail track was blasted at seven different places on 1 st
July. Three days later, Owais claimed Baluch terrorists were losing
ground. Security forces captured a suspect of BLA involved in murder
of Chinese.
On 5th July, security forces killed 25 miscreants in a raid on their camp
in Sangsila area and large cache of arms and ammunition was
recovered. Rockets were fired at a post in Pirkoh area. Senator Agha
Shahid Bugti said Akbar Bugti survived attempt on his life in an air
strike on 3rd July.

489

 At least 14 people were wounded in a bomb blast in Quetta on 7 th July.

Rebels fired rockets on three posts in Dera Bugti area. Next day, three
soldiers of FC were killed in attack on a check post in Sui town.
Security forces backed by helicopters attacked seven rebel camps on
9th July and killed 23 and wounded 15 others.
On 10th July, about 40 Bugti tribesmen, including Akbar Bugtis
nephew, surrendered before the authorities.
Seven people were killed in a tribal clash in Kashmor on 11th July.
Coast Guard man was killed in a bomb blast in Hub. Five terrorists
were arrested from Naushki and border area.
Eight rockets were fired at different check posts in Baluchistan on 12 th
July. Three days later, about 600 Bugti tribesmen of Bashkwani and
Nokani sub tribes surrendered.
With the signs of the return of normalcy, Alex Bigham in his article
published in the Guardian, asked the Crusaders to pay some attention to
Baluchistan. As the British Army prepares to send hundreds of extra troops
to southern Afghanistan, we need to understand what is happening in
Baluchistan in Pakistan the lawless province, desperate for autonomy from
Islamabad.
Baluchistan is effectively the Kurdistan of Central Asia the
Baluchs principally live in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan so are divided by
what they see as arbitrary borders implemented by colonial powers.
The Baluchi people are distinct from the Punjabi elite that dominate
Pakistani politics they are Muslims but more secular in their outlook with
their own language and culture. The Baluchi people believe that they have
been suppressed in many ways by the Pakistani government. So, they
qualify as a nation, dictating the need for redrawing the map.
They feel that Baluchistan existed as a nation, and has merely
been occupied by Pakistan, a situation that the international community
continues to ignore, focusing its relations with Pakistan on the war on terror,
and the vexed issue of Kashmir. He meant that it was Baluchis, not the
Kashmiris, who needed to be liberated with urgency.
But why should the UK and the rest of the international community
care about what happens in Baluchistan? While answering the question, he
spelled out the pretexts for their liberation in some detail. Firstly, it is the
frontline in the war on terror. Quetta, the capital of the province is a
490

known al-Qaeda stronghold, as Colonel Chris Vernon, a senior British

Army officer in southern Afghanistan and President Hamid Karzai have
said.
Those whove visited lawless provinces such as Helmand report
seeing more Pakistani fighters under the black and white flag of the
Taliban than Afghans. Presentation of the pretexts is similar to Powells in
UNSC about Saddams bombs.
The 700 military check posts in the region are used to intimidate
Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA) fighters than stop the Taliban soldiers
clad in black salwar kammeezes and turbans. He has charged Pakistani
security forces on two counts; intimidating Baluch freedom fighters and
allowing free movement to Taliban terrorists. The article seemed to be
written by some Baluch dissident and only had the stamp of Alex Bigham.
Islamabad armed and supported the Taliban, backing the mullahs
of Jamaat-i-Islami and Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam. Some of the Pushtuns
continue to provide support and cover for al-Qaeda operatives crossing the
border.
The Durand line which supposedly separates Pakistan and
Afghanistan, has still not been officially recognized, and was considered to
have been lapsed in 1996 The Taliban are free to cross a border so porous
it is said to be marked out on water.
The Chinese and the Iranians have realized the potential there.
The possible Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline was opposed by the Bush
Administration, but is marking slow progress. Resource-hungry China has
gained a foothold in the province, by sending engineers and security officials
to construct a port at Gwadar for a possible oil/gas pipeline connecting
Gwadar with Xinjiang
In addition to these major geo-political and security concerns, the
international community should be aware of human rights abuses in
Baluchistan. The Pakistan army is accused of killing civilians The military
dictatorship in Islamabad are not alone, there are also human rights
violations committed by the Shia theocracy in Iran. He virtually linked
Pakistan to axis of evil.
These facts and claims make a compelling case that Baluchistan
should at least be on the radar of the international community, and some
countries should even reconsider their stance towards the Pakistani
government, due to hold elections in 2007.

491

After the killing of terrorists in a raid in Sangsila area, the News asked
the government to engage terrorists leaders in talks. It must not get
carried away by its current military successes and believe that the
solution to the provinces many problems is through the gun alone.
A few days later it added, that the prevalent situation is certain to
continue in the absence of dialogue, is not going to encourage the foreign
investment that the government so desperately seeks to develop its poorest
province. Nor will it help in efforts for the elimination of grievances held by
many in the province against the centre The government needs to
contact the Baluch leaders to start a dialogue, because violence can only
go on for so long and is fruitless.
Rahimullah Yusufzai talked of Baluch youth. There have been reports
about young Baluch University graduates joining the ranks of the
militants and getting killed or arrested. The younger generation of Baluch,
particularly from the affected tribes and districts, appear to be sliding toward
militancy and losing hopes in a federal Pakistan.
The military option would be no more than a short-term solution of
the festering problem. Imposing solutions on a largely unhappy Baluch
population would not work in the long run and instability would elude
Pakistans largest and resource-rich province.
The soft image remained elusive. Some of the events reported
during the period, which did not go well with the quest for the soft image,
were as under:
The miscreants fired a missile at Hangu on 18 th June. Five days later,
nine-member Supreme Court bench stopped privatization of Steel
Mills, noting omissions and commissions in deal on part of state
functionaries. PPP demanded Awais Legharis arrest in PSM scam.
Next day, Justice Rahmat Hussain Jaffery, head of Nishtar Park
Tribunal of inquiry expressed displeasure over non-cooperation of the
investigators.
Anti-terror judge was shot dead in Gilgit on 25 th June. Four days later,
PML-Q activists ransacked Peshawar Press Club.
A retired brigadier, his daughter-in-law and four teenagers were
kidnapped and beaten by ISI personnel over petty dispute. On 5 th July,
DG ISPR regretted the incident and assured strict action.

492

 Rocket was fired at Hangu city on 7th July and a councilor was
abducted.
On 12th July, an anti-terrorism court in Karachi acquitted Naveedul
Hasan of involvement in a failed plot to assassinate Musharraf.
Allama Hassan Turabi and his nephew were killed on 14 th July by a
suicide bomber in Karachi, three policemen were injured. Government
decided to launch operation to round up high-profile terrorists.
Next day, protesters torched dozens of vehicles and ransacked
buildings in Karachi.
The government, however, kept working to acquire soft image. On
21 June, two wanted LJ terrorists were arrested in Karachi. Danish
Ambassador made a comeback after five months. On 7th July,
parliamentarians were briefed for the first time on various aspects of nuclear
deterrence.
st

On 7th July, Musharraf signed an ordinance in pursuit of soft image,

which would help immediate release of 1,300 women in various jails, those
involved in murder and terrorism wont benefit. Next day, six LJ militants
suspected of planning attacks at Shandur festival were arrested by
authorities.
Musharraf vowed to fight terrorism and extremism on 9th July, while
addressing public gathering during Shandor festival. Three days later it was
reported by Noorilhuda that Tahir Hussain, British citizen awaiting
execution in a murder case, was hopeful of release.
The decision of the Supreme Court on privatization of Pakistan Steel
Mills stole the show for the critics. The News thought that the annulment by
the Supreme Court of the sale of Pakistan Steel Mills to a three-party
consortium was a stirring rebuke and a censure of the government. It
noted in a shorter order that the privatization of the Pakistan Steel Mills
stood vitiated (rendered ineffective or debased) by acts of omissions and
commissions on the part of certain state functionaries which seemed to
indicate that there had been violation of mandatory provisions of the law
and rules in matters relating to the pre-qualification of the bidders, the
valuation of the mills and the final terms that were offered to the successful
party.
Also heartening to note is the courts realization (as mentioned in the
short order) that it is not the function of the court, ordinarily, to interfere in

493

the policy-making domain of the executive. In a properly functioning and

free democracy and with a government that truly works in a transparent
manner, perhaps the case would never have reached the Supreme Court.
Air Cdr Azhar A Khan strengthened his argument by quoting some
facts and figures. Pakistan Steel Mills deal worth Rs 21.680 billion also
included a 72km railway track, 14,800 horse-power locomotive engines in
running condition, over 100 railway wagons, a steel ore plant in Thatta, a
110 MGD eater reservoir plant, a thermal power plant, an oxygen plant, etc.
According to reports, the value of these assets is more than Rs 200 billion,
and the value of the raw material and finished goods stands at Rs 14 billion.
The credit for exposing the dubious deal goes to Barrister
Zafarullah Khan, the chairman of Watan Party, who moved the court
against the consortium. Justice demands that exemplary punishment be
awarded to all those who wanted to eat up a strategic profit earning unit.
Gulmina Bilal added: According to Supreme Court, at least in the
case of Pakistan Steel Mills privatization, money was being paid to the
buyer This observation was made when it was revealed in the court that
the Privatization Commission had agreed to give additional benefits to the
buyers. These additional benefits included paying off Rs 18 billion
liabilities of the steel mills.
In addition, the federal government would also have been using
taxpayers money to the tune of Rs 15 billion to pay the mills employees
under the golden handshake scheme. If one calculated the agreed additional
benefits, the government would have been paying Rs 33 billion while
selling the mills for Rs 21.68 billion.
On top of all that, a Mauritius based off-shore company was included
in the final agreement at the very last moment. This led the court to observe:
In this privatization case, the bidders and the buyers are different. It
seems that someone else is sponsoring the dealand operating the
companies from behind the scene.
The Supreme Court judgment clearly states that at least in the
Pakistan Steel Mills case transparency has taken a beating. Is Pakistan
Steel Mills an isolated case? The Council of Common Interest has also not
discussed the PTCL and the Habib Bank cases for the simple reason that it
did not exist when these entities were privatized. Does this make them
unconstitutional as well?

494

Dr M S Jillani said, the principle of disinvesting the public

enterprises after they have shown the way to private sector may be valid. But
it does not permit throwing away precious and strategic assets in the
name of foreign investment. Pakistan Steel is a case in point.
Dr Masooda Bano wrote, the key problem with privatization is that
the process of privatizing state assets is rarely clean and publicly
accountable and is marred with corruption. Assets are often sold below the
market price due to connivance between the bureaucrats in charge of the
process and the bidders; also there is little public accountability of the
bidders. As highlighted in the court proceedings of the privatization of
Pakistan Steel Mills, the privatization process under the current government
is seriously suffering from the same problem.
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar was of the view that the SCs annulment of the
privatization of Pakistan Steel Mill was based upon clear evidence that the
process was highly suspect and that government officials favoured the
eventual successful bidder. Furthermore the favoured bid ostensibly
offered the chance of self-aggrandizement for state functionaries. On the
whole, all big deals done by this or any other government in Pakistan can
always expected to be at least particularly influenced by considerations of
personal accumulation.
The decision based as it was on such painfully obvious and
inexplicable holes in the governments case including the fact that the sale
value was far below even the value of the land which the PSM establishment
occupies also illustrates that the government has gotten very sloppy in
its dealings.
Taking this argument further forward, it is important to bear in mind
that the annulment of the PSM privatization by the Supreme Court is not
necessarily a sign of things to come. The decision does not herald a new
and independent phase in its history neither does it altar the reality of a
centralized and obsolete state that continues to operate as its colonial
predecessor did.
Another image-damaging incident was high-handedness of ISI.
Farahatullah Babar wrote, this newspaper and its reporter Ansar Abbasi
deserve to be complimented for being the first to break the story of how a
serving army officer belonging to an intelligence agency thrashed an 80year-old twice decorated war-hero, tore the clothes off his daughter-in-law
who resisted, and then kidnapped them along with some teenagers. After
beating them blue they were abandoned at a deserted place.
495

The critical lesson to be learnt and the issue to be addressed is that

the ISI has really got out of control and needs to be reined in and its
officers and men held accountable. Concerned citizens must demand a
judicial and parliamentary probe into the incident, the proceedings of which
must be held in public.
Lt Col M Akhtar Butt from Sialkot said, people expect the
President of Pakistan (the senior-most serving general as well as the supreme
commander of Pakistans armed forces) to take appropriate action and order
a trial of all those personnel who were part of this gross violation of the
agencys code of conduct by a field general court martial irrespective of their
ranks/positions. A maximum punishment should be awarded to the culprits
under PAA Section 55 and 59 to let it be known that no one, not even the
ISI, can stand above the law. The same is applicable to couple of incidents
of beating by ministers and parliamentarians.
Kamran Shafi was of the view that bad things happen; people can
behave in beastly fashion as did Major Tipu and his storm-troopers. But
what the hell is wrong with us, for Gods sake, that even ten days after the
incident, an incident that should have shaken the General Headquarters to its
very foundations, no action has been taken against the perpetrators? Except
for the typical Pakistani thing of hushing everything up the Sir Jee, Mitti
Pao attitude that has so badly affected, almost destroyed our country.
Moin Qayyum from Islamabad wrote, had the victim not been a
retired army officer, and had he not written to the president, probably the
whole incident would have gone unnoticed and unreported. Or had the
incident occurred in a small town other than Islamabad, no one would have
dared to talk about it. But, as usual, no heads will roll and no one will be
held accountable. All the retired brigadier has got is an apology for the
thrashing he and his family members received. And he should thank his
stars that he got an apology after all; had the victim been a civilian, even that
would not have been forthcoming.
Kamran Shafi wrote about the issue too often talked about. It is
important to see why we Pakistanis are treated like dirt by embassies of
foreign countries that operate on Pakistani soil. The answer is simple: it is
entirely the fault of the government that does not stand up for its people.
Readers will remember the Generals first addressin which he said he
would ensure the green Pakistani passport was henceforth respected in the
world. He has miserably failed, of course.

496

Let me one more time say this and hope that some slumbering little
sahib of the Foreign Office will wake up and do something about it: Indians
get ten-year American, British and Schengen visas. Isnt this one statistic
enough to tell us where we stand in the eyes of the world, frontline state or
no frontline state?
The News criticized about gagging the press. Threats have been in
vogue since long, however, these have assumed more sinister proportions
in the wake of the war on terror. The family of late Hayatullah Khan alleges
that his murder was perpetrated by an intelligence agency and the detention
incommunicado for over three months of Mukesh Rupetaseverely
undermines the claims often made by the president and the prime minister
that the press is free.
From the number of such cases in the past, it would seem that those
doing the detaining surely could not be working without the sanction of their
superiors. Tacit or explicit approval of such barbaric methods, whose sole
objective is to terrorize and intimidate all journalists, must stop.
Ghazi Salahuddin pointed out the most important link between
poverty and the soft image. One story this past week has shattered my
nerves. On June 20, a factory worker in Lahore slaughtered his three little
daughters and himself went to the police to report the crime. This man,
Muhammad Ashraf, known to be a drug addict, is reported to have told the
police: I have no guilt over what I have done. I think what I did with my
daughters was fair enough since I knew that they had no future.
But this was not the end of the story. An elite force constable went to
the police station and killed Ashraf with his official gun. If Ashrafs madness
had some implications, the action of the police commando is truly
exceptional. This is how justice is administered in our society.
The analyst had also written about Hudood laws. But some other
lines that are to be engraved in the hearts and minds of the people are also
important. It is in this respect that we should return to the ordinance that
would facilitate the release of women detained on various charges including
under the Hudood Ordinance, and measure its meaning and its impact.
Unfortunately, the task of erasing the legacy of General Zia has not yet
begun in earnest.
The News took on the religious parties in the same context. A
meeting of religious parties in Islamabad on Thursday, held under the aegis
of an ulema and mashaikh convention, passed a resolution condemning what

497

the parties said was the governments encouraging of western NGOs and
so-called intellectuals for speaking against Hudood-e-Islami.
The editor termed it as rejectionist worldview. The convention shows
a disturbing tendency among much of the religious parties in the country
to reject anything that goes against their literalist and rigid worldview.
It only makes one wonder that where the silent majority and where the
enlightened and progressive sections of society are. And if they are indeed
there, why dont they make their presence felt?

CONCLUSION
Except from issuing of occasional statements, Washington has yet to
sincerely acknowledge the services of Pakistan for promotion of US interests
in the region. This is because of the Americas prejudices against Pakistan
which are likely to persist because of its Islamic identity.
The stalemate in the peace process was broken during the period, but
in negative terms as it was put in reverse gear after the serial bombings in
Mumbai. India resorted to Pakistan-bashing instead of accepting that Islamic
militants have formally acknowledged Indias strategic partnership with the
Crusaders. If it is so, there will be more trouble for India.
On the home front, surrender of Bugti rebels indicated that the
government seemed to have made inroads in breaking the hold of Akbar
Bugti, who is fighting for a lost cause. However, in the context of soft
image, the assassination of Allama Hassan Turabi was a major setback.
16th July 2006

PHASE III WEEK I

498

The prediction of the Washington Post came true on 12th July, when an
Israeli military patrol trespassed into Lebanese territory and was
successfully ambushed by Hezbollah fighters. This military action resulted
in killing of eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapping of two others.
Within 24 hours, Israel blockaded Lebanese ports and struck Beirut
airport and two military bases. In all 53 people were reported killed and over
one hundred were wounded. An Israeli officer said the air and sea blockade
would be a prolonged offensive against Hezbollah fighters. Israel also feared
that its captured soldiers may be transferred to Iran. Tehran said Israel was
talking absurdities.
Hezbollah fighters fired at least 70 rockets on Israeli territory in
retaliation, killing one and wounding 43 Jews. Western media blamed Iran,
Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas for having intentions to escalate the conflict.
Bush said, Israel has the right to defend herself. The EU and Russia
condemned Israels strikes. Arab foreign ministers agreed to hold
emergency meeting.
On 14th July, Israel carried out an air strike to kill Nasrallah. Israels
interior minister said, Nasrallah decided his own fate. We will settle our
accounts with him when the time comes. Nasrallah declared open war
against the Jewish state after escaping unscathed in Israeli air strike on his
office in Beirut. You wanted an open war; you will get an open war. It will
be war at all levelsto Haifa, and beyond Haifa.
France, Russia, Malaysia and Indonesia condemned attack on
Lebanon. Chirac said, I find, honestly, like most Europeans, that the
reactions are completely disproportionate. Russian foreign office stated,
one cannot justify the continued destruction by Israel of the civilian
infrastructure in Lebanon and in Palestinian territory, involving the
disproportionate use of force. Malaysia urged the international community
to take action. Indonesia demanded resumption of the Middle East peace
process.
Saudi Arabia blamed Hezbollah by saying that its adventurism created
the crisis. It is necessary to make a distinction between legitimate resistance
(to occupation) and irresponsible adventurism adopted by certain elements
within the state and taken without its knowledge.
Mottaki said, the international community and the UN must intervene
to stop this crime. UNSC meeting ended with no action on Beiruts demand
for truce. Blair urged global effort, thereby aiming at drawing back Russia
and China to support the ongoing Crusades.
499

Next day, in exercise of the right to defend itself Israeli air strikes
and bombing killed 354 Lebanese, including 15 children, and dozens of
civilians were wounded. Infrastructure and leaders of Hezbollah were
targeted and a crossing point on border with Syria was also hit. Hezbollah
rockets struck town of Tiberias and wounded eight Israelis. NAM flayed
Israeli aggression. EU countries started evacuating their citizens. Arab
League said Middle East peace process was dead.
On 16th July, at least 45 Lebanese were killed and 111 wounded. Israel
targeted Hezbollah TV station, al-Manar. Six Palestinians were killed in Beit
Hanun in northern Gaza Strip. Nine Israelis were killed in Haifa in rocket
attack by Hezbollah. Olmert vowed to avenge deaths in Haifa. Hezbollah
threatened to attack petrochemical installations.
Haniya said, I am wondering whether the international community
has been so silent ever before in the face of such cruelty. Ive never heard of
or read about the acceptance of such cruelty. Lebanese Prime Minister said,
unfortunately, whats happening is that the Security Council had a meeting
and then postponed (action)believing that by doing this there would come
a time that the Lebanese will surrender Lebanese will not surrender.
Turkish Prime Minister charged that Western powers were keeping
mum over mounting bloodshed, and warned they would pay the bill by
facing more terrorist attacks. Those who back global peace (only) with
words will sooner or later pay the bill by facing global terrorism This is
what provoking terrorism is.
Syria alerted its forces and vowed to respond directly to Israeli strike.
Iran warned Israel against losses if it attacked Syria. OIC sought end to
Israeli raids on Lebanon and Pakistan asked world to ensure peace. Iraqi
government denounced Israels criminal raids on Lebanon.
Blair urged dealing with arc of extremism effectively. The only way
were going to get anything doneis if we deal with the underlying causes
that are giving rise to that Im afraid Hezbollah was encouraged and
supported both by Syria and Iran. Pope condemned both terrorist acts and
the reprisals. G-8 demanded end to Israeli operations in Middle East.
Next day, at least 47 people were killed in Israeli strikes in Lebanon
and ten dead bodies were recovered from debris. A total of 24 Israeli had
been killed to date, including 12 civilians in a barrage of Hezbollah rocket
fire. Hezbollah claimed shooting down an Israeli aircraft. Nine people were
wounded in Israeli bombing in Gaza Strip and one person was killed and
four wounded in a clash in Beit Hanun.
500

Israel refused to have contacts with Hamas-led government and said it

was too early to consider peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Solana visited
Lebanon and called for de-escalation of hostilities. His unstated mission was
to assess the Lebanese resolve to resist Israeli aggression. Hezbollah refused
to join talks for ceasefire on Israeli terms. At G-8 summit, Bush asked
them to stop this shit. At last, he realized that he was in shit.
On 18th July, Israeli warplanes battered Lebanon, killing 30 people.
One Israeli was killed in rocket strike by Hezbollah. Biggest evacuation
since WW-II had begun. Britain had a flagship, aircraft carrier HMS
Illustrious and amphibious assault ship HMS Bulwark in the area for this
purpose. British Foreign Secretary refused to term Israeli aggression as
disproportionate reaction. Canada and Britain blamed Iran and Israel for
escalation of conflict.

AIM AND GOALS

The aim and goals of the war are kept secret for obviously reasons.
This leads to the speculations by the experts, who end up in identifying some
of the goals related to the overall aim. The goals so identified are generally
stated vaguely.
Uri Avnery said, a war must have an aim. What is the aim of this
war? Like George Bushs invasion of Iraq, Ehud Olmerts invasion of Gaza
has an aim that changes from day to day. The same appears to be somewhat
true about its offensive against Lebanon.
Ramzi Kysia wrote, Ehud Olmert has refused to discuss the issue of
Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, and has instead demanded the
unconditional release of the captive Israeli soldiers. Hes backed up that
demand with the reinvasion and massive bombardment of Gaza over the past
two weeks, and has now moved his war to Lebanon as well.
But it isnt peace that Israel is after. Again its submission. And it
is possible to beat people into at least temporary submission. But morality
aside it would take much more violence than Israel is currently willing to
use to beat the Arab peoples into submission Arabs are humans, and
humans make poor slaves.
Gwynne Dyer opined, the so-called peace process has been
paralyzed for fifteen years by bitter Israeli arguments over whether the
Palestinians should be allowed to have fifteen percent of former Palestine for
their state, or ten percent, or nine at all
501

Olmert has been working on imposing a settlement. Impose,

rather than negotiate, since no Palestinian would ever agree to such a deal,
but Israel could only justify such an arbitrary act if it could plausibly claim
that there were no reasonable Palestinians to negotiate with.
It is valid to ask what Israel thinks it is doing urged David Clark. It
might become apparent that far from wanting a partner with which to
negotiate, the Israeli government is acting with the specific intention of
forestalling that possibility. There is nothing particularly new in this.
In the case of the current crisis, it is no accident that it occurred at
precisely the moment when Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, was
gaining the upper hand in the latest round of the struggle. By using the threat
of a referendum to force Hamas to accept the existence of Israel as the basis
for a final settlement, Abbas had created the most promising opening for
peace in six years The plain truth is that Israel thinks that it can get
more by imposing a solution through force than by negotiation and is not
interested in any kind of peace process George Bush has described it as a
bold idea.
As regards Lebanon, the News wrote, with this large-scale attack Mr
Olmert has opened a second front for his armed forces. He, quite predictably,
described the new kidnappings as an act of war and threatened a very
painful and far-reaching response. His army chief of staff, Lt Gen Dan
Halutz was more blunt, ominously warning the Lebanese government that
Israel would turn back the clock on Lebanon by twenty years if Hezbollah
did not free the soldiers. That threat means that Tel Aviv would not mind
decimating much of the Beirut to get its two soldiers back, because that is
how the Lebanese capital was some 20 years back.
The newspaper added, it is becoming increasingly clear that the
objective of Israels new war on Lebanon isnt the release of (captured
soldiers) but the replacement of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora
with a pro-Israeli figure. Israel appears to hope that that will in itself lead
to Hezbollahs destruction.
The Jordan Times said, there is no justification for such
disproportionate and brutal collective punishment As with Gaza, what
began as an operation to find captured soldier has broadened into a wider,
open-ended and ill-defined fight to the finish, first against Hamas, and
now against Hezbollah.
The New York Times said, The challenge for everyone else is to find
a formula to achieve peacefully what just about every country apart from
502

Syria and Iran now seems to agree has to happen. Hezbollah should disarm
its private militia, stop operating as a state within a state in southern
Lebanon and allow the Lebanese government in Beirut to exercise the full
sovereignty it has been denied for decades.
Uri Avnery wrote, the declared aim of the Lebanon operation is to
push Hezbollah away from the border, so as to make it impossible for
them to capture more soldiers and to launch rockets at Israeli towns. The
invasion of Gaza Strip is also officially aimed at getting Ashkelon and
Sderot out of the range of the Qassams.
Of course the present operation also has several secondary aims,
which do not include the freeing of prisoners. Everybody understands that
that cannot be achieved by military means. But it is probably possible to
destroy some of the thousands of missiles that Hezbollah has accumulated
over the years.
Another secondary aim is to rehabilitate the deterrent power of
the army. That is a codeword for the restoration of the armys injured pride
that has suffered a severe blow from the daring military actions of Hamas in
the south and Hezbollah in the north.
The idea of installing a Quisling in Lebanon is nothing new. In
1955, David Ben-Gurion proposed taking a Christian officer and installing
him as dictator. Moshe Sharet showed that this idea was based on complete
ignorance of Lebanese affairs and torpedoed it.
Olmert unleashed an enormous military operation that was clearly
prepared long in advance. It remains to be seen how for the Israeli offensive
will go to Beirut or even to Damascus but it is clearly aimed at
accomplishing strategic objectives that have no relationship to the
incidents that supposedly provoked it read World Socialist Website.
No one can seriously suggest that bombing Lebanese towns and
villages, imposing a naval blockade and attempting to assassinate Sheikh
Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, are methods likely to win the freedom
of the captured Israeli soldiers.
The Israeli regime has made no secret of its desire to smash up the
Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. The economic blockade imposed in
January, after Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections, has been
escalated into a full-scale military blockade of Gaza, where Hamas has its
main political support.

503

In Lebanon, the goal of Israel is, at a minimum, the physical

destruction of Hezbollah, the Shiite Islamic movement which dominates
the southern third of the country. A full-scale invasion of southern Lebanon
by Israeli ground forces is more than likely.
Gilbert Achcar in interview to Paola Mirenda said, the recent events
have been seized as pretexts to crush both Hezbollah and Hamas, and the
violence of Israeli military onslaught is to be read in that context. Israel
takes entire populations hostage; it has done so with the Palestinian
population and is doing the same now with the Lebanese.
Some analysts focused on identifying the objectives of Hezbollah and
Hamas intended to be achieved by capturing Israeli soldiers. Megan K Stack
and Rania Abouzeid said, the reason behind Hezbollahs decision to flex its
muscle so aggressively may never be fully explained, but the hostage taking
carried an unmistakable message of defiance that seemed aimed not just at
Israel, but at fellow Lebanese, neighbouring governments and the West.
Ramzi Kysia was of the view that the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers
wasnt random, and its hard to call it terrorism. The Israeli military is
directly engaged in acts of violence against Arab peoples. If Israel can
assert a right to use violence to secure political gains, then so too can the
Arabs.
Uri Avnery opined, the Palestinian population, too, is not collapsing,
in spite of its dreadful situation. It demands, almost unanimously, that the
captors not release the soldiers if there is no release of Palestinian
prisoners-of-war.
Patrick Seale opined that Hamas and Hezbollah are attempting to
change the rules of the game by establishing a measure of deterrence, in
effect some sort of a primitive balance of power. The message delivered to
Israel by the two cross-border raids, which triggered the current crisis, is
simply this: If you hit us, we will hit you.
Israel is as eager as Hamas and Hezbollah to change the rules of the
game but to its own advantage, by making such attacks even more
devastatingly costly for their perpetrators and for the societies from which
they spring.
Eric S Margolis reported that Shaikh Hassan Nasrallah made clear
that Hezbollahs border operation, which also killed eight other Israeli
soldiers, was done for two reasons. First, to support embattled
Palestinians in Gaza, who are being ravaged by Israeli air, land, and sea

504

attacks. Second, to secure release of some of the hundreds of Hezbollah

prisoners and 10,000 Palestinian political prisoners being held by Israel.

AGRESSION
There was nothing new about Israeli aggression; Lebanese were at the
receiving end for the seventh time in less than as many decades. It was usual
case of showering death and destruction over Lebanese from land, air and
sea for their offence of harbouring Islamic militants.
Uri Avnery, while writing about Israeli offensive against Gazans,
termed it one-sided war. The chief of Israels Southern Command, General
Yoav Gallant, speaks of war, and so do the media. Reality? War is a
defined situation regulated by international law. It takes place between
enemies, who are obliged to observe basic rules But Israeli government
asserts that it is facing not an enemy with rights, but terrorists,
criminals and gangs. And those, of course, have no rights.
In a war, there are prisoners-of-war. That applies to Corporal Gilad
Shalit, who was taken prisoner in a military action, as well as to the
Palestinian fighters who are held by us. But our government defines Shalit
as kidnapped and the Palestinian prisoners as criminals.
It seems that the Jewish brain is inventing new patents (as a popular
Israeli song once said). After the Unilateral Disengagement and the
Unilateral Peace, we have now a Unilateral War. A war in which one side
(the stronger) enjoys all the rights of a belligerent party, while the other
(weaker) side has no rights at all.
For most Israelis, this is another chapter in the long war against
Palestinian terrorism. Again our brave soldiers are obliged to face the vile
Palestinian murderers, who aim to throw us into the sea. Again we fight
because there is no alternative.
He observed that all this was happening despite the fact that already
on the eve of the operation, Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas agreed with
Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah to accept the prisoners paper, which de
facto recognizes Israel within the Green Line border. Now in the heat of the
battle, Fatah members clamour to join the Hamas fighters in the struggle
against the invader, and the remnants of Abbas influence are fading.
David Ignatius wrote, watching the events of the past few days, you
cant help but feel that this is the rerun of an old movie one in which the

505

guerrillas and kidnappers end up as the winners. Israels fledgling Prime

Minister, Ehud Olmert, wants to emulate the toughness of his
predecessor, Ariel Sharon.
Ramzi Kysia tried to understand where all of this violence comes
from. Some of it comes from racism the notion that all Arabs are natural
born terrorists, not worthy of our collective human rights. Some of it
comes from greed the desire for geopolitical dominance and territorial
cupidity. But much of the violence also comes from fear.
Fear and dominance are also the context we must use to
understand Israels conception of fighting war for peace. On the surface this
formula seems absurd. After all, war is supposed to be the defined opposite
of peace. You literally cant fight a war for peace.
Adel Safty explained the Zionist strategy by recalling the history of
creation of the Jewish state. Some East European Jewish intellectuals began
calling, in the latter part of the 19 th century, for the establishment of a
territorially based Jewish nationality. Leon Pinsker suggested a small
territory in North America or in Turkey. Theodor Herzel, a Hungarian
journalist, suggested Argentina or Palestine and argued that the
establishment of a Jewish state could only be accomplished by deception
and force.
Hewarned against the method of gradual infiltration of Jews
because sooner or later infiltration is bound to end badly. For there comes
the inevitable moment, when the government in question under the pressure
of native populace, puts a stop to further in flux of Jews.
After noting that the infiltration of Jews into Argentina has produced
some discontent, he turned his attention to Palestine where he proposed that
a Jewish state there would form part of a wall of defence for Europe in
Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism.
Most Zionists and Zionist writing deliberately ignored the existence
and the rights of the overwhelming Muslim and Christian majority in
Palestine even though the establishment of an exclusively Jewish state,
which they preached, would necessarily entail the expulsion of the existing
population of Palestine.
Upon being elected President of the Zionist Organization by the First
Zionist Congress, in Basle in August 1897, Herzel looked to Germany for
support for a publicly recognized, legally secured homeland in Palestine
But, Germany had neither the power nor the influence to secure the

506

necessary support from Constantinople where the Sultan strongly rejected

Herzels request for colonization of Palestine.
The Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) was Herzels
blueprint for the colonization of Palestine. Intrinsic to the proposed
agreement between the world Zionist Organization and the JOLC was the
concept of the transfer of the Palestinian Arabs from Palestine.
Herzel also had his own ploy for getting rid of the 93 percent Muslim
and Christian majority population in Palestine. He recommended that the
Zionists occupy the land in Palestine and gradually spirit the penniless
population out of their country by denying it employment.
During his only visit to Palestine (October 26-November 4, 1898)
Herzel noted with emotions how a group of daring Zionist colonists on
horseback who greeted him at a Zionist colony reminded him of the Far
West cowboys of American plains.
Rahimullah Yusufzai argued that Meshaal had a point when he
argued that the 19-year-old Israeli soldier was taken prisoner in a
legitimate military operation that spared civilians and targeted Israeli
servicemen, who are part of the occupation forces. After all, soldiers die and
become prisoners in the course of duty and Israeli soldiers are no exception
to the rule, more so when they routinely indulge in extra-judicial killings
Once again it is Israel which violated the rule of engagement by
killing more than 60 Palestinian civilians, including women and children
Predictably, Israel turned its revengeful attention to Lebanon when
Hezbollah guerrillas killed eight of its soldiers and abducted two others in a
daring cross-border operation on July 12. This again was a military
operation, which is legitimate given the fact that Israel refused to pullout its
troops from the Lebanese territory known as Shebaa Farms
Israeli forces are now pounding Lebanon from land, sea and air after
having sent troops into the country in a brazen display of power and
arrogance. Dangerous new fronts have been opened in the long-running
conflict in the Middle East and the situation will worsen if the Palestinian
groups and Hezbollah stand by their pledge not to release Israeli soldiers
without prisoner swap.
If there had been a just world order in place right now, instead of
the US-dominated universe, the Palestinian and Hezbollah would have been
hailed for taking three Israeli soldiers prisoner while resisting the occupation

507

forces, and the Israelis condemned for hundreds of civilians including eight
democratically elected Hamas ministers.
The Washington Post wrote, Hezbollah offers few conventional
military targets; its offices, training camps and safe houses are hidden from
view. So the Israelis have opted to inflict general pain on their northern
neighbour, destroying bridges, blockading ports, cratering runways at its
brand new international airport and, now, threatening to attack Beirut
itself.
The idea may be to intensify popular Lebanese opposition to
Hezbollah, which forms part of Lebanons governing coalition and controls
cabinet seats. That has apparently worked; many Lebanese, including but not
only Christians, are furious at Hezbollah for exercising what amounts to a
unilateral foreign policy. This was more of wish than a reality.
The Hindu said, while Israels response to the abduction of two of
its soldiers by Hezbollah has been outrageously disproportionate and
indeed terroristic, the militant outfit shares the blame for jeopardizing the
safety of Lebanese civilians through its trans-border raid of July 12 In
displaying the military power to fight on several fronts at the same time,
Israel is reminding the neighbourhood that it has what it calls a deterrent
force.
Gwynne Dyer wrote, everyone knows that the Lebanese
government does not control Hezbollah, but Israel held Beirut
responsible, rolled its tanks across the border, and launched a wave of air
strikes that has already killed over 50 Lebanese.
The whole game plan has unraveled, and Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert has run out of strategies. He is just responding by reflex and
the habitual Israeli reflex, when confronted with a serious challenge, is to
lash out with overwhelming force Its armed forces are incomparably
superior to those of all its neighbours combined, both because they have
state-of-the-art technology and because they simply outnumber all other
armies they face.
Israeli savagery reached a new low when over a dozen innocent
Lebanese children were massacred in the air strikes. Instead of deploring
these ghastly crimes against humanity and taking measures to stop them, US
President George W Bush justified them by arguing that Israel has a right to
defend itself. What he left unsaid was that Arabs and Palestinians have no
right whatsoever not even the right to life wrote the Asian Age.

508

Agreed, the Israeli Army had every right to secure the release of its
kidnapped soldiers both in Gaza Strip and Lebanon; even a targeted attack
on militants holding them hostage would not have been unjustified in pursuit
of this objective. But carpet bombing civilian areas, destroying residential
buildings, devastating infrastructure and killing innocent people are
certainly not aimed at merely securing the release of two soldiers.
Shireen M Mazari wrote, Israels unleashing of military might against
the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian people and against the hapless
Lebanese state shows most starkly the terrorism a state with massive
military resources can unleash.

RESISTANCE
Whereas there is nothing new in the Israeli aggression, it is facing a
new kind of resistance. Israeli Defence forces are not pitched against
professional soldiers of the Arab regimes, but the fighters who have
emerged from the Arab masses who have been at the receiving end for too
long. This resistance has a marked feature of do or die resilience, and, by
virtue of resorting to unconventional warfare, they deny Israel the outright
classic victory.
Eric S Margolis said, in 1975, I arrived in Beirut for the first day of
Lebanons 15-year civil war. Seven years later, I accompanied Israeli troops
as they invaded Lebanon, and was with an Israeli armoured unit in
Nadatiyah when it shot its way through a procession of Shia worshippers
marking Ashura. This notorious event was said to have sparked the birth
of Hezbollah.
Uri Avnery wrote, for the other side, this is a heroic stand of their
finest sons against an evil and vicious enemy. One of the strongest armies
in the world, equipped with the most up-to-date weaponry, is deployed
against a handful of untrained fighter with primitive arms.
The leader of the resistance fully understands that his struggle against
the enemy could be subverted by own ruling elite. Megan K Stack and Rania
Abouzeid wrote, the countrys elected government was still in meetings
Wednesday, when Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah went before
television cameras with a pointed threat for the ruling elite.
Today is a time for solidarity and cooperation, and we can have
discussions later. I warn you against committing any error. This is a
national responsibility, the cleric said, looking every inch the head of a
509

state Any criticism over the capture of the two Israeli soldiers would be
tantamount to colluding with Israel, Nasrallah said, making it clear that he
expected citizens and officials to heed his orders.
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb observed that it is ironic, given Israels
bombing of civilian targets in Beirut, that Hezbollah is often dismissed in the
West as a terrorist organization. In fact its military record is
overwhelmingly one of conflict with Israeli forces inside Lebanese
territory.
This is just an example of the way that the West employs an entirely
different definition of terrorism to the one used in the Arab World and
elsewhere, where there is a recognition that terrorism can come in many
forms The attempt to frame Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is
very far from political reality in Lebanon, from public opinion across the
Arab and Islamic World, and from international law.
Eric S Margolis opined that trained by Iran and aided by Syria,
Hezbollahs tough fighters became the only Arab military force ever to
defeat Israel and shatter its record of military invincibility. Israel swore
revenge.
So far, Hezbollah is the only Arab force that has taken any
concrete action to help the Palestinians suffering devastating collective
punishment by Israel. Such collective punishment, now also being inflicted
by Israel on a national scale on Lebanon, is a crime under international law
and the Geneva Conventions.
All parties involved are to blame for this frightful mess and carnage:
Palestinians and Hezbollah for provoking Israel at a time when its new
leaders were anxious to show they could blast Arabs as effectively as Ariel
Sharon, and Israel for its brutal repression of their leaders.
Patrick Seale was of the view that unlike earlier Arab-Israeli wars,
which Israel was able to win with relative ease, this time it is not confronted
by Arab states at least not yet but by popular resistance movements,
enjoying wide support among the Muslim masses of the Arab World.
This is one reason international security mechanisms seem powerless to
bring the crisis under control.
Gilbert Achcar said, the relation of solidarity that Hezbollah has with
Hamas it did not have either with the PLO or the Palestinian Authority when
the latter was led by Arafat. Hezbollah never had any sympathy for Arafat
and even less so for Mahmoud Abbas, in whom they dont recognize the

510

same radical opposition to Israel that they see in Hamas, when they dont
accuse them of betraying the Palestinian cause.
David Ignatius observed that Israeli and American doctrine is
premised on the idea that military force will deter adversaries. But, as more
force has been used in recent years, the deterrent value has inevitably gone
down. Thats the inner spring of this crisis: The Iranians (and their clients in
Hezbollah and Hamas) watch the American military mired in Iraq and see
weakness. They are emboldened rather than intimidated.

CRUSADERS ROLE
A day after the Israeli attack on Lebanon, the News wrote, one hopes
that the only country that Israel sometimes listens to, America, will now step
in and urge Tel Aviv to exercise restraint and pull back its military. This was
the wish of a wishful ignorant. This a joint venture of Crusaders and
Zionists.
Eric S Margolis tried to find reason behind this evil collaboration.
The White House has been too obsessed with its lost wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan to pay attention to the Arab-Israel conflict. Under Bush, US
Mideast policy has fallen into the hands of far rightists, called
neoconservatives, and fundamentalist Palestinians.
The Jordan Times wrote, the past few weeks of unequivocal support
for the Israeli killings of Arab civilians has now reached a level of
obscenity. A White House lacking all shame and any semblance of integrity
is defining self-defence scaring Gazan children witless at night with sonic
booms, ensuring that hospitals can only run on emergency power, and killing
civilians in Lebanon.
The US proclaims itself a friend of Israel, but even on that score it is
sorely lacking. Allowing Israel the rope to hang itself and everyone around it
is not very nice, really. But since the US invaded Iraqthe US has lost its
way, the little credibility it had, not to mention its moral compass.
Gilbert Achcar said, Bush Administrations hypocrisy that claims to
be very much concerned by the fate of the Lebanese people only when it is a
matter of opposing Syria. To hold the present Lebanese government
responsible for Hezbollahs action, even after this government has officially
taken its distance from that action, is a demonstration of Israels diktat
policy on the one hand, and on the other hand the indication of Israels

511

determination to compel the Lebanese to enter into a state of civil war, as it

tries to do with the Palestinians.
Uri Avnery was of the view that as in 1982, the present operation,
too, was planned and is being carried out in full coordination with the
US. As then, there is no doubt that it is coordinated with a part of the
Lebanese elite. That is the main thing. Everything else is noise and
propaganda On the eve of 1982 invasion, Secretary of State Alexander
Haig told Ariel Sharon that, before starting it, it was necessary to have a
clear provocation, which would be accepted by the world.
The provocation indeed took place exactly at the appropriate
time when Abu Nidals terror gang tried to assassinate the Israeli
ambassador in London. This had no connection with Lebanon, and even less
with the PLO (the enemy of Abu Nidal), but it served its purpose. It means
that Israel would have resorted to the current aggression on any other
pretext, even if the Israeli soldiers were not kidnapped.
This time, the necessary provocation has been provided by the
capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. Everyone knows that they
cannot be freed except through an exchange of prisoners. But the huge
military campaign that has been ready to go for months was sold to the
Israeli and international public as a rescue operation.
The American policy is full of contradictions. President Bush
wants 9Regime change) in the Middle East, but the present Lebanese regime
has only recently been set up by under American pressure. In the meantime,
Bush has succeeded only in breaking up Iraq and causing a civil war (as
foretold here).
Shireen M Mazari remarked, with US President Bush and his faithful
sidekick Tony Blair, continuing to declare their absurd refrain of Israels
right to defend itself, the international community has been reduced to a
frustrated spectator to this latest act of Israeli terrorism. If ever there was a
true reflection of unilateralism, it is this ability of the US to undermine all
efforts at multilateral diplomacy and international peace and security.
There is also a wider plan of the US-Israeli combine to eventually
break up what are seen as strong Muslim states. Iraq is already slipping
into a divisi9ve, ethno-sectarian civil war and since 9/11 the US has sought
to undermine the Saudi ruling family. There are some in the US who think a
Shia Arab state carved out of Eastern Saudi Arabia (where the bulk of the oil
also lies) and southern Iraq could be a counter to Iran.

512

As for Jordan, the Israelis along with the US have been thinking of
this third option that is, annex the West Bank, push Palestinians into
Jordan creating a Palestinian state there, as a way out of their dilemma of
having to accept the reality of a viable Palestinian state. So far the
Jordanians are holding their ground as the chaos increases around them.
World Socialist Website revealed a much wider design of the
Crusaders and the Zionists. US military intervention in Lebanon is also
likely. US media reports of July 14 suggested that the initial planning for
such an intervention was well advanced, with 2,200 Marines to be deployed
as a helicopter-borne force that would land near Beirut on the pretext of
protecting the 25,000 American citizens now trapped in Lebanon by the
Israeli blockade. American helicopter-carrier ship was exercising in the
vicinity of Lebanon days before Israeli attack on that country.
Separate or joint US and Israeli air strikes against Syria and
Iran, and even ground invasion of Syria, are also possible. Certainly the
main focus of the Bush Administration, the congressional Democrats and
Republicans, and the American media has been to blame Syria and Iran for
the crisis, claiming that those regimes were pulling the strings in Hezbollah.
The Bush Administration will not retreat from Iraq and cannot
maintain the status quo, as the country slides deeper into civil war and
popular opposition to the war mounts among the American people. A
sizeable section of the US ruling elite believe that Iran is using its growing
influence on the Iraqi Shiite parties and militias to undermine US control of
the puppet regime established in Baghdad, and that a military
confrontation with Tehran is inevitable.
The mushrooming crisis in the Middle East is a predictable
consequence of the massive military intervention by the United States in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and the increasing aggressive and reckless policy of
American imperialism throughout the region The policy of United States
and Israel is based on a never-ending cycle of war. The Bush
Administration rests its entire foreign policy on the belief that American
military power and high-tech weaponry can solve every problem. The
Zionist project is similarly predicated on unrestrained use of force against
the Palestinians and other targets, such as Hezbollah.
In the last few days, the American media has been filled with
denunciations of Hamas and Hezbollah; portraying them as terrorist
organizations and fitting targets for a massive escalation of military force.
But in the final analysis, the real target of the United States and Israel is
513

not this or that organization, but the oppressed masses throughout the
Middle East.
They aim to destroy the will to struggle of the tens of millions of
people who have never accepted Zionist dispossession of the Palestinian
people, and who will never accept the US conquest of Iraq and the
establishment of a neo-colonial stooge regime in Baghdad.
The Guardian wrote, in a sane world the summit would have allowed
the heads of the most powerful countries to sit down and jointly persuade all
sides into respecting a ceasefire and imposing a period of calm. Instead, the
G-8 meeting in St Petersburg remained divided. Its emergency
communiqu, issued last night after long wrangling, merely called for
utmost restraint and an end to attacks, and for the UN Security Council to
consider a monitoring force on the border between Israel and Lebanon.
Without a clear ceasefire none of that can happen. But despite active
support from France and Russia, the US was intent on blocking any such
call. Tony Blair laid blame on Syria and Iran for supporting extremists.
George Bush pressed over whether he supported a ceasefire, instead
reiterated: My message to Israel is that as a sovereign nation, you have
every right to defend yourself against terrorist activities.
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb opined that the US and Israel, find themselves
in the bizarre position of repeating policies that have consistently failed for
the past 40 years. Israel has this to show for its track record of being tough
The US for its part is strangely marginal. Its chosen policies have lined it
up squarely with Israel
The Asian Age wrote, the silence of the United Nations and the
international community is appalling. Why are the countries which
vociferously deplore every act of terror, tongue-tied over Israels state
terrorism? And where is the US which claims to be the honest broker in
the Middle East peace process? To silence the angry Arab World over the
illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, President Bush had promised that he
would resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by creating a sovereign
Palestinian state by 2005. Had he kept his promise, the Middle East would
not have been pushed to the brink.

Western media and most analysts fully supported the

psychological warfare of the Crusaders. Even in this naked aggression
against a sovereign state, they have been justifying Israeli aggression and
demonizing the resistance put up by Hezbollah.

514

Even a person like Robert Fisk could not resist expressing his antiSyrian sentiment and talking about Shia-Sunni divide in Lebanon. He
preferred to overlook the fact that the followers to two sects have been coexisting peacefully despite American and Israeli efforts to ignite the
sectarian strife to neutralize Hezbollah through a civil war as America
has done with Sunni resistance in Iraq.
With the emergence of some electronic media networks in Islamic
World, misleading the masses of the region has become slightly difficult.
But, this propaganda is also aimed at winning domestic public support
for the ongoing Crusaders. The media has been fairly successful in this
context. This has been done by giving one sided story.
Eric S Margolis noted that Americans have never been told by
their government-guided media that in a speech, Osama bin Laden
asserted that 9/11 attacks on the US were revenge for Israels cruel
destruction of Beirut with artillery and bombs in which up to 18,000
Lebanese and Palestinian civilians died According to George Bush, wasnt
democracy supposed to solve the Mideasts problems and end its violence?
It is not possible to cover all that has been said by Media to distort the
facts; herein, some of the comments are reproduced. The Washington Post
wrote, there can be no surprise at the violent reaction to Hezbollahs
ambush of an Israeli patrol Hezbollahs chief sponsors, bear
responsibility for what has instantly become the most far-reaching, lethal
and dangerous eruption of cross-border fighting in the Middle East in recent
years.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert now faces hostilities on two fronts. In
Gaza Israel has shown that it can assert military power, de-capacitate the
Hamas-led government and halt normal life for 1 million Palestinians;
however, none of that has forced Hamas to return its hostage.
The paper subsequently wrote, G-8 leaders issued a communiqu
calling for an end to hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. Not
specifically named in the statement, however, are Syria and Iran
although the United States wanted a statement that faulted both countries for
their support of Hezbollah. As President Bush said before meeting with
Indias prime minister, Syria housed and encouraged the terrorist
organization.
The Christian Science Monitor out rightly blamed Hezbollah and
Hamas. Often, it is difficult to sort out who started what in a Middle East
conflict, but thats not the case here. Militant Islamists Hamas in the Gaza
515

Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon provoked this by incursions into Israel,

killing and abducting Israeli soldiers, and demanding the release of Arab
prisoners in exchange for the Israeli captives.
At the same time, Hamasneeded to divert attention from peace
moves made by President Abbas and worsening daily life under its watch.
And Hezbollah, also holding ministries in a more democratic Lebanese
government, has been under growing pressure to disarm. What better way
to justify both groups violence supported by Syria and Iran than to align
with an issue that has emotional standing among Palestinians and with
which theyve had success with Israel in the past: prisoner exchange.
These fledgling democratic governments could find strength in their
publics, who dont want war. Thats why, before all this happened, Mr Abbas
proposed a referendum relating to dealing with Israel. The idea gave him
leverage with Hamas something the militants didnt like. Moderates
could also threaten to expel these groups from government leadership, to
which they belong for the first time. That risks political collapse, but that
could happen anyway. It was indirectly urging for the regime change.
Gilbert Achcar in his interview to Paola Mirenda blamed Israel
saying; it is necessary to stress that the principal responsibility for
deterioration of the whole situation falls on Israel. It has lately reached new
peaks in its utterly revolting behaviour, especially with regard to Gaza. After
the abduction of the soldier by a Palestinian group, the Israeli army has
killed dozens and dozens of Palestinian civilians.
But he too held Iranian President Ahmadinejad responsible for his
provocative statements since his election one year ago were part of this
game. According to him it fits in with Tehrans strategy facing the USA,
at a time when American pressure on the nuclear issue is in full
escalation. But, whatever the case, it can be said that what Hezbollah did has
prompted a test of strength that risks costing them a great deal, as it is
costing the whole of Lebanon very much already.

ROLE OF MUSLIMS
Nothing can be said about the Muslim elites role in the ongoing war
without having the feeling of shame and sorrow, yet one cannot escape
making mention of their apathy. One should start from ones home.
Rahimullah Yusufzai discussed Musharrafs misconceived attempt at
establishing contacts with Israel.
516

Musharraf committed an error last September when he sent his

seemingly eager Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri to Istanbul to
meet his Israeli counterpart, Silvan Shalom. The unexpected meeting, hosted
on Pakistans request by Israels only friend in the Islamic World, Turkey,
was ostensibly meant to reward Israel following the then Prime Minister
Ariel Sharons decision to pullout his occupation troops from Gaza. Events
of recent days clearly show that it was nave on the part of the Pakistan
government to believe the Israelis or expect them to respect Palestinian
rights.
Known for his openness and not one to mince words, it would be fair
to ask President Musharraf to admit his mistake and do so publicly.
Recently, he conceded that his popularity was falling and members of the
public and commentators praised him for his frankness. It would contribute
to his stature if he were to concede that he acted in haste and erred while
undertaking the ill-timed initiative to befriend Israel.
The move no doubt pleased the US and Israeli governments and
paved the way for an invitation to President Musharraf to address the
American Jewish Congress in New York on September 17, 2005, but it
displeased the Palestinians and a large number of Muslims worldwide.
As pointed out by the then Palestinian Information Minister Nabi
Shath, who belonged to the nationalist and secular Fatah and not to the
Islamic Hamas, it wasnt proper on Pakistans part to give gifts and reward
Israel for pulling out its troops from Gaza. His plea and that of other
Palestinian and Arab observers was that Pakistan should have waited until
Israel vacated all Palestinian territories, including the West Bank and
Eastern Jerusalem, and allowed the creation of an independent Palestine
state.
It would be useful to revisit the issue now that Israel under its new
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister and Labour Party head
Amir Peretz, is busy destroying whatever is left of the Palestinian
infrastructure and inflicting collective punishment on the people of
Palestine.
Apparently, the American policy is to delay the inevitable and enable
the Zionist state to eliminate all sources of threats to its existence. Given the
volatile nature of conflict, how come Pakistan entertained an idea of
playing, in the words of our foreign minister Kasuri, a helpful role in
moving forward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

517

One of the arguments in favour of his meeting with the Israeli

Foreign Minister in Istanbul on September 1, 2005 was that Pakistan could
not play the role if it is not on talking terms with one of the parties to the
conflict, i.e. Israel. By engaging Israel, he and President Musharraf were
hoping to position Pakistan to become an acceptable peacemaker in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Little did they realize that the Palestinians,
neither under Fatah nor Hamas, would be willing to accept such a role
for Pakistan in view of its subservient position vis--vis the US.
Israel too would not assign Pakistan this role keeping in mind the fact
that most Pakistanis oppose US and Israeli policies. Besides, weak and
unstable nations such as Pakistan should set their own house in order
instead of poking its nose in others affairs and harbouring illusions of being
important players in international affairs. Islamabad would do well to
remember that even the European Union, Russia and important Arab
countries such as Egypt have little or no role to play in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, the US wishes to involve them as partners in its pro-Israel ploys to
further subjugate the unfortunate Palestinians.
Looking back at the Istanbul meeting between the Pakistani and
Israeli Foreign Ministers, it is clear that it affirmed Islamabads
acceptance of the Jewish state as a legal entity and set the roadmap for
establishing diplomatic ties between the two countries once the unequal and
unjust peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians made further
headway.
One still has the feeling that the Pakistani rulers, either under US
pressure or due to some false notions, were waiting for an opportunity to talk
to the Israelis and they jumped to take their chance when the opportunity
presented itself following the Israeli forces withdrawal from Gaza. It is
clear that Pakistan has gained little after taking that infamous plunge
because no peacemaking role has been assigned to it by the world powers,
Israelis or Palestinians. We also dont see any blunting of the anti-Pakistani
sentiment in the Jewish lobby and Indias growing friendship with Israel too
hasnt been checked.
The negative fallout of that move is perhaps much stronger with
Palestinians in particular and many Arabs in general still unhappy with
Pakistan. For President Musharraf, it meant giving more ammunition to his
opponents for branding him a stooge of the US. There is strength in their
argument that the president tried to engage Israel in the hope of appeasing
America and prolonging his rule.

518

If the intention of winning favours of the Crusaders is true, and there

is no reason to doubt, this is the right time for Musharraf to establish links
with Jewish state, which has been isolated by its own deeds. A goodwill
diplomatic gesture at this stage would please Bush and Olmert immensely.
The Jordan Times wrote, both the US and Israel are devoid of ideas
and of policies for dealing with the Middle East. Arab leaders fare no better,
rudderless in the absence of direction from Washington. So they run
around, saying first one thing then another like nervous schoolgirls,
while Nasrallah steadily increases his influence.
Gulf News said, the Arab League has successfully managed to
meet, yet has disappointingly failed to act. It has miserably fallen short of
facing the challenges of the moment. It is pointless, therefore, for the Arab
League to convene an emergency Arab Summit in an attempt to save
Lebanon from the Israeli onslaught.
The statements given by Arab foreign ministers are indeed
disgraceful. No help or unity in positions was offered to the battered
Lebanese population. Why have not Israeli ambassadors to Arab countries
been expelled or at least recalled in protest? Why has not an oil embargo
been mentioned even as a tactical weapon of threat? Disarrayed and weak,
the Arab official stance should simply resort to silence. Neither would Arabs
be able to resolve not influence any course of action.
Instead of showing solidarity with Lebanon, which implied supporting
Hezbollah in its struggle against Israel, Arab ruling elite and some
intellectuals did not take their eye off Shia factor and toed the Crusaders
line. Rami G Khouri wrote, Syria and Iran, who have carefully and patiently
positioned themselves as allies, patrons, hosts, financiers, arms suppliers and
ideological brothers of Hamas and Hezbollah. While these two groups are
primarily driven by local resistance to Israel, and are Palestinian and
Lebanese in their basic identity, they both play important roles in the
foreign policies of Iran and Syria.
He acknowledged that Hezbollah and Hamas emerged in the past
decade as the main Arab political forces resisting Israeli occupation in
Lebanon and Palestine. They have enjoyed substantial popular support in
their respective countries, but blamed them for eliciting criticism for their
militant policies that inevitably elicit harsh Israeli responses.
He also accepted that the Lebanese and Palestinians have
responded to Israels persistent and increasingly savage attacks against

519

entire civilian populations by creating parallel or alternative leaderships

that could protect them and deliver essential services.
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb had similar views. The domestic significance
of these hostages is ignored by those who choose to reduce the abductions to
an act of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza The regional significance of
the abductions has also been misconstrued. To suggest Hezbollah attacked
on the orders of Tehran and Damascus is to grossly oversimplify a strong
strategic and ideological relationship. Historically there has been an overlap
of interests between Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Together they form
a strategic axis the axis of terror to Israel that confronts US-Israeli
designs to redraw the map of the region.

THE IMPACT
This conflict marks the advent of new era in which non-state
actors in Islamic World have taken upon themselves to fight against USIsraeli terrorism. The emergence of these actors was inevitable for filling the
vacuum left by the retreat of ruling elite, who see their survival in avoiding
the confrontation with superpower and its watch-dog.
Patrick Seale opined that the non-state actors such as Hamas and
Hezbollah and indeed the still more extreme al-Qaeda have arisen
precisely because of the inability of Arab states to deter Israel from its
brutal treatment of its captive Palestinian population or America from its
aggression in Iraq.
Apart from the retreat of Muslim ruling elite, the attitude of the
Crusaders precipitated the new phenomenon. Shireen M Mazari observed
that the US, with its unilateralism and notion of coalitions of the
willing is reducing the international system into an anarchic one making
existing international law and norms of inter-state behaviour almost
irrelevant. If the Israeli notion of collective punishment is accepted then
even more chaotic scenarios can result. If, for example, a Pakistani soldier is
kidnapped or killed by an Afghan, should the Pakistani state have the right to
collective punishment and move its military into Afghanistan? By such
perverse logic, it really depends on who is more powerful, not who is right.
This change has serious implications for all the parties, more so for
the Crusaders who excel in initiating conventional wars unilaterally and
winning those with extensive use of high-tech military power. David

520

Ignatius cautioned both America and Israel to avoid past mistakes and learn
reliable strategic lessons.
The first is that in countering aggression, international solidarity and
legitimacy matter A second point obvious from Gaza to Beirut to
Baghdad is that power of non-state actors is magnified when there is no
strong central government A final obvious lesson is that in an open,
interconnected world, public opinion matters.
World Socialist Website said, there is a profound sense in which the
policies of the United States and Israel appear counter-productive and
self-defeating. The Bush Administration played a major role in creating the
current Lebanese government, and the forced withdrawal of Syrian troops
from Lebanon has been touted as one of its few foreign policy successes in
the Middle East. Yet the Israeli attacks threatened to undermine and discredit
the regime in Beirut, which is compelled to stand by impotently while
Lebanese citizens are slaughtered, now in dozens, soon perhaps in hundreds
and thousands.
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb observed that Israels escalation has been a
poor PR exercise. Even if it succeeds in showing the Lebanese people that
Hezbollah can be a liability, this may well be cancelled out by Israels own
Aggression, which will only confirm Hezbollahs repeated warnings of
the constant threat posed by Israel.
David Clark said, if Israel couldnt defeat Hezbollah after 18 years in
which its army occupied large swaths of Lebanese territory, it is not going
to succeed with air strikes and blockades, or even another occupation.
The same point applies even more forcefully in the case of Gaza.
Nor does it seem plausible that military action will enable Israel
to secure the release of its captured soldiers. The civilian victims of
Israels indiscriminate retaliation have no real influence over the militias that
hold them, while the militias themselves are untroubled by the spectacle of
public suffering.
Megan K Stack and Rania Abouzeid had similar views on the issue.
Some officials of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority had appeared to be
edging toward a deal to release Cpl Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier seized
near Gaza last month. Now it seems unlikely that Hamas and Israel will
be able to conclude any such deal until Hezbollah is satisfied.
Robert Fisk, however, was optimistic. Prisoner swap is probably all
that will come of this. In January 2004, for example, Israel freed 436 Arab

521

prisoners and released the bodies of 59 Lebanese for burial, in return for an
Israeli spy and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers.
As long ago as 1985, three Israeli soldiers captured in 1982 were
traded for 1,150 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners. So Hezbollah knows
and the Israelis know how the cruel game is played. How many have to
die before the swaps begin is a more important question.
The Guardian wrote, Israels disproportionate response has now
brought the area into chaos. It has acted as though the politics of the
region do not exist; instead it has reacted directly to each kidnapping and
each missile. Israel has the right to defend itself, a task made harder by the
hidden arsenal of Hezbollah, and it should object to any one-sided calls for
restraint. But it cannot control its enemies responses: it can only control its
own.
Richard Cohen opined, the greatest mistake Israel could make at
the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake The idea of
creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some
Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we
are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south,
but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the IsraeliMuslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It is why the
conflict mutates and festers The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan
and some other countries may condemn Hezbollah, but I doubt the
proverbial man in the street shares that view.
Uri Avnery was of the view that Israels plan of regime change in
Lebanon wont work. Ariel Sharon tried to put it into effectBashir
Gemayel was indeed installed as president, only to be murdered soon
afterwards. His brother, Amin, succeeded him and signed a peace agreement
with Israel, but was driven out of office. (The same brother is now publicly
supporting the Israeli operation.)
I have my doubts. It can be assumed that most Lebanese will react as
any other people on earth would: with fury and hatred towards the invader.
That happened in 1982, when the Shiites in the south of Lebanon, until then
as docile as a doormat, stood up against the Israeli occupiers and created the
Hezbollah, which has become the strongest force in the country. If the
Lebanese elite now becomes tainted as collaborators with Israel, it will
be swept off the map.

522

Less than three months after its formation, the Olmert-Peretz

government has succeeded in plunging Israel into a two-front war, whose
aims are unrealistic and whose results cannot be foreseen(but) the man
who makes the decisions in Israel now is Dan Halutz. It is no accident that
the job in Lebanon has been turned over to the Air Force.
Megan K Stack and Rania Abouzeid wrote, in Lebanon, the action
solidifies the groups position as an armed entity independent of
government control at a time when it was coming under increasing pressure
to give up weapons.
In the broader region, the move lends Hezbollah and Nasrallah the
credibility of taking up the Palestinian cause as other Arab leaders are
standing silently by. Todays Tehran Times, for example, ran the story under
the headline Hezbollah Rushes to Help Palestinians.
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb said, Israels disproportionate response to the
soldiers capture will have an impact on Lebanese domestic policy.
Hezbollah has recently proposed a comprehensive national defence strategy;
the Lebanese government has yet to come up with anything similarly
convincing. If demands for a prisoner exchange are successful then it shows
that what Hezbollah would term the logic of resistance is the most
effective defence strategy.
The Hindu wrote, given the region-wide implications of the crisis, it
is no surprise that several Lebanese parties too are now trying to rein in
Hezbollah. The cabinet has discussed plans for the deployment of the regular
army in the southern districts that have been completely under the sway of
the militant outfit. It is highly unlikely that Hezbollah, which is a part of
the coalition government, will countenance such a deployment or accept a
concurrent proposal for the disarmament of militias.
The Daily Star observed that most Lebanese view Hezbollahs
latest operation as a dangerous gamble. Although they do not have much
sympathy for the Israelis, who destroyed their country during a brutal
invasion and occupation, they do fear Israels signature brand of retaliation
collective punishment at a time when their country is already passing
through a period of instability. They are dangerously exposed because their
leaders have failed to forge a sense of cohesion and unity during the national
dialogue.
Lebanese civilians, who have absolutely no control over the events
that are unfolding, and who once again find them in the eye of storm, are
now bracing for the very worst. Their darkest fear is that as they helplessly
523

repeat the act of watching history unfold on their land, this time the promise
of Lebanons resurrection will itself become history.
Uri Avnery said that if the Israeli government carries out its public
threats to kill the Palestinian Prime Minister and his ministers, Hamas will
only emerge strengthened. The place of the martyrs will be filled by new
leaders from among the fighters, and the Palestinians will close ranks behind
them. The same is true in the context of Hezbollah.
In Israel, the opposite may happen: the operation may well hurt the
government that started it. The cruel projector of the crisis throws a hard
light on them and this light is not at all complimentary. It seems that
among them there is not even one person who is more than a grey
politician.
The Statesman opined, the net result is that we have all the
ingredients of a terrible and long international war, in which it would
take very little for Syria to join the fighting against Israel, and for America to
attack Iran to prevent it from doing the same. Both Israel and Hezbollah
appear determined to take casualties and losses in order to make their point,
and neither can be forced to stop until their mentors in the USA and Iran
respectively urge them to do so.
The Hindu observed that Hezbollahs actions at this juncture have
been of benefit to the government in Damascus But there can be little
doubt that Hezbollahs adventurism has drawn attention away from the just
struggle the Palestinians are currently waging against an anti-human Israeli
invasion of the Gaza Strip.
World Socialist Website read that it might appear irrational that an
administration which has been unable to subjugate Iraq (population 26
million), would attack Syria (population 18 million) and even Iran
(population 75 million). But such attacks are the logical outcome of the
imperialist perspective that it is possible for American imperialism to
impose its will on the Middle East, and obtain control of the regions vast oil
resources, through sheer force of arms.
Most analysts saw the solution in dialogue. Amal Saad-Ghorayeb said
that as long as main actors persist in their intemperate policies, the
consequences will remain grim. The way to break this cycle is for all
actors to negotiate a political solution that responds to their legitimate
grievances and demands.

524

Eric S Margolis opined that after more killing and destruction, Israel
will eventually talk to its enemies. Its only a question of how many
civilians will have to die before this happens. Gwynne Dyer expressed
similar views but with reservations.
Sooner or later, if Israel is to have a long-term future, it must make
peace with its neighbours and that depends critically on making peace
with the Palestinians, the main victims of the creation of Israel Most of
them are willing to settle for a pretty meager share of what used to be
Palestine say, the twenty percent that they retained until Israel conquered
them in 1967. But that has never been on offer.
Both Hamas and Hezbollah are adept at pushing Israels buttons and
getting it to overreact (even if that does involve Israel destroying what little
infrastructure there was in the Gaza Strip, and destroying Lebanons
infrastructure all over again). The dwarf superpower of the Middle East is
good at smashing things up, and so long as the real superpower behind it
does not intervene, nobody else can stop it, But nobody in this game has a
coherent strategy for getting out of it.
David Clark was of the view that a just settlement is possible. But the
main reason it has proved illusive is that Israel is not, and never has
been, prepared to make the territorial compromises required. It still
believes that it is entitled to the victors spoils by annexing large tracts of
Palestinian land.
The key to resolving the situation in Lebanon lies, as it did
throughout the 1970s and 1980s, in finding a solution to the Palestinian
question. A viable and successful Palestinian state would rob Hezbollah and
its sponsors of the conceit that they are defending helpless Muslims and
make it easier for those in the region who oppose them to gain the upper
hand.
Patrick Seale wrote, unless Israel grasps that it may not always be
able to dictate terms to the Arabs and that the time may have come to
negotiate a global settlement involving Syria, as well as Lebanon and the
Palestinians, down the road may lie mass-casualty terrorism, long-range
missiles, potential Islamic revolts in neighbouring countries such as Egypt,
and even in a catastrophic scenario dirty bombs against Israeli cities.

CONCLUSION

525

Despite the fact that previous Arab-Israeli war had been short and one
of them lasted only six days, it appeared that this war could last little longer.
Therefore, it is too early to draw any conclusions at this stage, but some
inferences can be drawn about the aim of the war.
During the heightened tension over Irans nuclear programme, the
debate on pros and cons for the Crusaders in the context of military option,
led to certain conclusions. One of the many conclusions was that Hezbollah
and Hamas could create problems for Israel.
In view of these conclusions, the Crusaders decided to defer the
military option and agreed to direct talks with Ayatollahs to gain time.
They planned to reduce Irans options of retaliation, particularly the one
related to Israels security. Therefore, the recent escalation is aimed at
destroying military and political strength of Hezbollah and Hamas. It could
be taken as the beginning of the third phase of the Crusades, which could
ultimately culminate in regime change in Tehran.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are the targets of the Crusaders;
perhaps in the same order of priority. All of them can be dealt with in this
phase, failing which it can be split into two or three. In case it is split into
two phases; Iran can be tackled at some later stage. If divided into three,
Syria will be tackled in next phase and Iran in the last.
A week long ordeal of Lebanon has once again exposed the miserable
plight of the ruling elite of the Muslim World. The have requested America
for help which happened to be the real aggressor and cause of all the trouble.
Nasrallah, however, seemed to be filling the vacuum in Ummah of
leadership by representing the popular sentiment.
19th July 2006

RESURGING TALIBAN
On the average 200 attacks per month were carried out in Afghanistan,
reported Rahimullah Yusufzai at the end of May. The intensity of attacks by
the Afghans resisting occupation certainly increased, but the reaction of the
occupation forces had also increased disproportionately.
US forces carried out 340 air strikes in last three months ending mid
June, more than twice the 160 carried out in the much higher-profile war in

526

Iraq. Uruzgan and Khost were pounded with 500-pound bombs. These
strikes obviously caused widespread collateral damage.
Karzai met elders in Kandahar who were perturbed by the killings of
innocent civilians and told them to relax. Eat your Shorba and take your
afternoon nap. But at the same time take care of the security of your villages,
districts and cities and leave the major things for me.
Afghan parliament approved a motion calling for the government to
prosecute the US soldiers responsible for the killings in Kabul. Bush
promised full investigation. The past experience showed that full
investigation always meant full cover-up.
The increase in violence in Afghanistan once again drew the attention
of critics. Other aspects of occupation, like promises of reconstruction
remained neglected. The Crusaders, however, kept stressing upon
eradication of the menace of narcotics.

INSURGENCY
Resistance continued; militants torched a school in Ghazni on 17th
April. Authorities banned unregistered motorcycles in Ghazni area. Next
day, five suspected militants were killed by occupation forces in Asadabad in
Kunar province. Death of another nine insurgents was reported earlier in the
Operation Mountain Lion. US-led forces killed six Afghans, including two
babies, in Khost when their cars ignored instructions to stop. One policeman
was killed in an ambush in Baghlan province.
On 19th April, Taliban claimed killing several Afghan and US troops in
suicide bombing and gun fight in Kunar province. A militant was shot dead
by US forces in Nangarhar. One militant died in Baghlan province when a
bomb exploded prematurely. Two Canadian soldiers were wounded in the
south.
Rocket exploded near US Embassy in Kabul on 20th April. Next day
Taliban attacked a police post in Maiwand district and killed six policemen.
A US soldier was killed and an Afghan soldier wounded when a patrol was
attacked in Uruzgan province. US-led forces bombed a village in Helmand
and killed 14 civilians and wounded two others. Three bombs were defused
in Khost and Kandahar provinces.
On 24th April, six children were wounded by explosion of a leftover
artillery shell near Jalalabad. A US plane leased to anti-narcotic force
527

crashed in Helmand killing one child and injuring nine people including
Americans. Five Taliban and one policeman were killed in a clash in
Kandahar province. Next day, three insurgents were killed in US air attack in
Helmand.
Taliban kidnapped an Indian telecom engineer in Zabul on 28 th April.
Next day, coalition forces killed 11 Taliban militants and detained a dozen in
separate raids across southern Afghanistan; while insurgents ambushed and
shot dead three policemen.
On 30th April, Taliban killed Indian hostage; Delhi condemned and
Karzai was saddened. Next day, US-led forces killed 20 suspected insurgents
in Helmand. Two coalition soldiers were wounded when their vehicle was
destroyed by a bomb blast in Kandahar.
A suicide bomber died in attack on a Canadian convoy near Kabul on
2 May. Four suicide bombings were carried out in last two days. One
Afghan soldier was killed and three wounded when a patrol was ambushed
in Uruzgan. Next day, Governor of Nangarhar escaped assassination attempt
in Jalalabad.
nd

On 5th May, a tribal chief, his son and his bodyguard were shot dead
by suspected Taliban in Helmand province. Two Italian soldiers were killed
and four wounded in roadside bombing in outskirts of Kabul. A wounded
Australian soldier was evacuated to homeland.
Ten US soldiers were killed when a Chinook crashed in Kunar
province on 6th May. Dadullah claimed shooting down the helicopter with a
new weapon. Hekmatyars nephew who was missing for seven months was
reported under detention at Bagram.
On 8th May, three persons, including two policemen were killed in
Zabul when a police patrol was ambushed. Next day coalition forces claimed
killing four militants in air strike in Paktika close to the border with
Pakistan. It was stressed that the site of air strike was well within
Afghanistan.
Taliban publicly executed a murderer in Uruzgan on 10th May. Two
days later, Canadian troops arrested ten suspected Taliban in Kandahar
province. On 13th May, an Afghan doctor and his driver were killed in rocket
attack near Herat.
Four policemen and 11 Taliban were killed in southern Kandahar
province on 14th May. One intelligence officer was shot dead by gunmen in
Lashkargah. Seven people were wounded in two bomb blasts in the capital.
528

Four policemen and three civilians were killed in two blasts in Baghlan
province.
On 15th May, security forces claimed that two of the 11 rebels killed
were commanders. Hunt for more than 100 Taliban continued in southern
Kandahar province. Next day, girl schools were attacked in Mazar area
injuring a teacher and five girl students. Coalition forces killed four Islamic
extremists in an air strike in Uruzgan.
A Canadian woman soldier was killed in fighting in Kandahar
province on 17th May. Eighteen suspected Taliban were killed and 26
captured in fighting west of Kandahar. About 100 people were killed in
Afghanistan.
On 18th May, Taliban attacked Mosa Qala in Helmand province and in
the ensuing battle, 13 policemen and 40 attackers were killed, six policemen
were also wounded. A suicide car bomber killed himself and an American
civilian near Herat. A suicide bomber in Ghazni killed himself and a civilian,
and a US soldier was injured. Three policemen and an intelligence official
were killed and six policemen wounded in other attacks. Eight Taliban and
two policemen were killed in hour-long battle in the province and one
militant was also captured. Seven Taliban were confirmed killed and 20
others might have been killed in air strike west of Kandahar, one foreign
soldier was wounded.
Next day, Mulla Dadullah refuted Afghan government claim of his
capture. Reinforcements were sent to Mosa Qala. One US soldier was killed
and six wounded in Uruzgan province. On 20 th May, 25 militants and 4
soldiers were killed in fighting in Helmand province. Four rebels were killed
in Zabul province. Two French soldiers were killed Kandahar region.
On 21st May, Taliban killed nine Afghan soldiers who were
surrounded after ambush a day earlier. Afghan Army earlier admitted that
four soldiers were killed, 24 wounded and several were missing. Spokesman
for coalition forces said a French soldier was killed and French and a US
solder were wounded; bringing the total of killed French soldiers to three.
Coalition forces estimated that about 200 rebels were killed since 17 th May
and more than 30 Afghan soldiers and policemen died in fighting. ExAfghan governor and a police chief of Paktia were kidnapped in Ghazni. An
American spy was shot dead in southern Ghazni province.
On 22nd May, US night-time air strike in area south of Kandahar killed
97 people in administration of collective punishment for recent attacks by

529

Taliban in which four coalition soldiers were killed. Death toll in recent
fighting rose to about three hundred.
Three policemen and 12 Taliban were killed when convoy of deputy
governor was ambushed in Helmand on 23rd May. Three workers and a
driver were killed in roadside bombing near Kabul. Human rights officials
and villagers insisted that large number of civilians were killed when US air
struck a village in Kandahar province. A teacher of Aziz village told that 40
civilians including women and children were killed and more than 50
wounded.
Sixty suspected Taliban and five troops were killed in fresh fighting in
Uruzgan on 24th May. Six suspected Taliban were arrested and three soldiers
and three policemen were wounded. A judge, a provincial official and two
guards were killed in an ambush in Ghor province. Three Afghan truck
drivers were killed in an ambush while going to Paktika.
On 26th May, US-led forces killed five Taliban in a strike near remote
village of Helmand province. Taliban kidnapped and killed a cleric in
Ghazni area. Two days later, four militants were killed in a gun battle in
Helmand province and dead bodies of three missing policemen were found.
Four policemen were wounded in roadside bombing near Ghazni.
A US military vehicle over-ran cars in Kabul and killed five civilians
on 29 May. When the incident sparked rioting, the US troops resorted to
shooting in self-defence and in all 14 Afghans were killed and 142
wounded. Karzai postponed Qatar visit and UN declared city no-go zone.
Afghan parliament called for calm arguing that enemies of Afghanistan
would take advantage of the situation. Coalition warplanes bombed a
mosque in Helmand province and claimed killing 50 Taliban. it was in
retaliation to an earlier exchange of fire. Twenty-one commanders
surrendered arms in Badghis Province.
th

On 31st May, gunmen killed three female aid workers in northern

Jawzjan province and police detained four suspects within hours of the
incident. Taliban fighters killed at least a dozen policemen and abducted up
to 40 in two separate attacks in Zabul province. US-led forces launched an
offensive in the nearby province.
A suicide car bomber blew himself in Farah province on 1st June. Next
day, three persons were killed in a car bombing near Kandahar. Four persons
were killed and a dozen wounded in a bomb blast on 3 rd June, which had
targeted a Canadian convoy in Kandahar.

530

On 4th June, four persons were killed and 12 wounded when a suicide
bomber attacked a Coalition troops convoy in Kandahar. Next day, one US
soldier died in Paktika. On 6th June, at least two coalition soldiers were
wounded in suicide car bombing on a convoy in Khost province. Two US
and two Afghan soldiers were killed in two bomb blasts in Nangarhar
province.
By 7th June, more than 250 Afghans were arrested for rioting in Kabul.
US truck driver will not be prosecuted, said an official. Three Afghan
soldiers were killed and four wounded in roadside bombing in Kunar on 7 th
June. Coalition forces killed 25 suspected rebels in five-day sweep in
Uruzgan. Five more were killed in skirmishes. Coalition forces claimed
killing 17 suspected militants in three operations on 4th and 5th June; three
coalition soldiers were also wounded.
Suspected Taliban shot dead two policemen in Kandahar province on
8 June. Three soldiers were killed in Ghazni province. A US military
vehicle hit a bus near Kabul injuring three civilians. Security forces in
Kandahar foiled a donkey-bomb attempt. At least 13 people were killed in
fighting near Tirin Kot in Uruzgan province. Next day 13 more, including
two aid worker were killed across the country. Four Afghans working on
road constructed by Indians were shot dead in Maiwand district on 10th June.
th

Fifteen suspected Taliban, including Mulla Omars brother-in-law,

were killed by coalition forces in raid on their hideout in Uruzgan on 11 th
June. In Kandahar province, 12 people were killed as result of air strike on a
building. Afghan forces claimed killing 10 persons in Helmand province. On
British officer was also killed.
Two persons were killed and nine other wounded in roadside bombing
in Khost on 12th June. Taliban denied arrest of Mulla Omars brother-in-law.
Two days later, more than 10,000 foreign and Afghan troops launched
massive operation in four troubled provinces of Uruzgan, Helmand,
Kandahar and Zabul. German troops mostly deployed in the north were to
join the offensive. At least 40 suspected militants were killed in air strikes
carried out in Operation Mountain Thrust.
On 16th June, Taliban claimed shooting down a US helicopter,
destroying two vehicles, and killing scores of US soldiers in Paktika
province. Spokesman belied coalition forces claim of killing 50 Taliban and
admitted loss of five fighters. Afghan authorities in Kandahar said a Taliban
commander with 100 fighters surrendered and 12 militants were arrested in
Ghazni.
531

Seven rebels were killed in Kandahar province on 17th June. Three

Taliban were killed in Helmand. Next day, Deputy Judge of the high court
and a trader were killed in two separate incidents in Ghazni. Son of the judge
was kidnapped. Taliban killed 32 friends and relatives of MP Dad
Mohammad Khan of Helmand province.
Coalition forces killed 11 militants in operations in Uruzgan and
Zabul provinces on 19th June. Taliban claimed destroying two jeeps and
killing US troops traveling in them in Kunar province. Another jeep was
destroyed in a similar attack.
On 20th June, a bomb targeted a convoy near Kandahar and killed one
Romanian soldier and wounded four others. Coalition helicopter attacks
killed 20 militants and wounded eight others in Helmand province. A
Turkish driver and three Afghan guards of a construction company were
killed in an ambush.
More than 30 people were killed in US-led forces operations on 21 st
June. One person was killed and seven wounded in suicide car bombing near
Kandahar. Next day, four US soldiers were killed and some other wounded
in clashes in Nuristan province. Taliban lost two of their men. Dead bodies
of four Afghans suspected of spying for the US were found on 22nd June in
Zabul province. Zawahiri urged Afghans to fight invaders. Hikmatyar
vowed to drive the US out of Afghanistan.
On 23rd June, 20 Taliban were killed and 18 wounded in five-hour
battle in Uruzgan. In Kandahar province, 25 rebels were killed in three-hour
battle. Next day, a regional police officer was shot dead in Khost. Defence
Ministry claimed killing nearly 150 and arresting 61 rebels in a fortnight.
US-led forces killed about 45 suspected Taliban in attack on a
compound in Kandahar province on 24th June; two coalition soldiers were
also killed and another was wounded. Next day three health workers were
abducted by Taliban in Nuristan. Mulla Omar claimed control over large
parts of Afghanistan.
Taliban freed four kidnapped health workers on 26th June. Three days
later, Afghan authorities claimed arresting 2 Pakistanis who were part of 20member team which entered southern Afghanistan to carryout suicide
attacks. Two of the team-members were killed in suicide bombing attempt in
Zabul and remaining 16 were still at large. Three Taliban were killed and a
policeman wounded in Helmand province.

532

Two rockets were fired at Kandahar base wounding ten people,

including two Canadian soldiers on 30th June. Next day, gunmen attacked a
police post in Balkh and wounded two men. Two British soldiers and their
interpreter were killed in attack on their base in Helmand province.
On 2nd July, 11 Taliban suspects were killed in the same area in
retaliatory attack. It was reported that Dostums men had thrashed an MP
nine days back while he was holidaying in Sheberghan area. Next day, a
woman was killed and 8 others wounded in a bomb blast in Herat
University.
Five Afghans working in a US base in Kunar were shot dead on 4 th
July. Six people were wounded in bomb blast in Kabul. Coalition forces
killed 12 suspected Taliban in Kandahar province. Next day, US-led forces
killed 35 suspected rebels in a strike on a compound in a village in Helmand
province. Three Taliban were killed in a clash in Zabul. A British soldier was
killed in Sangin town. One person was killed and 47 wounded, mostly
government employees, as three bombs exploded in Kabul.
On 6th July, US-led forces bombed village in Kajaki district of
Helmand province and killed 15 civilians. Three Taliban were killed while
planting a roadside bomb in Helmand province. Police claimed arresting one
Taliban fighter and rounding up 125 Afghans from several mosques and
madrassas in Kandahar area.
US-led troops mistakenly opened fire on a car carrying family of an
Afghan MP in Helmand on 7th July; one person was killed and four
wounded. Next day, US forces claimed killing six Taliban and wounding
seven others in Zabul province.
On 9th July, Canadian and Afghan forces raided Taliban strongholds in
Kandahar province; a Canadian soldier and 5 Taliban were killed.
Subsequently, ten more were killed in air strike. Taliban claimed capturing
two districts in Helmand province.
US-led forces launched an offensive in Uruzgan on 10 th July and
killed about 40 suspected Taliban; one Afghan soldier was also killed and
three soldiers of occupation forces were wounded. Rockets were fired at a
base of German troops in Kabul.
On 12th July, an Afghan and a Pakistani were killed and ten people
wounded in blast near border in southern Afghanistan. Three persons were
killed in suicide car bombing in Khost province. Three Afghan commanders

533

surrendered arms in Logar province. Former soldiers and Mujahideen staged

protest and demanded salaries.
US-led forces killed 30 people on 13 th July, in air strikes in two areas
of Helmand province. One person was arrested in Kabul while trying to
plant a bomb. Six persons suspected of involvement in Kabul blasts were
arrested. Five persons were wounded in bicycle bomb in Mazar-i-Sharif.
Next day, nine Taliban were killed and one captured in a clash in Uruzgan
province. Suicide bomber was killed and a policeman was wounded in
Khost. A Dutch helicopter was fired at in Helmand province.
US-led forces launched a big attack in Sangin district of Helmand on
15 July and killed 27 Taliban. One person was killed and another wounded
in grenade attack on convoy delivering supplies to US-led forces in Zabul.
Next day, US-led forces pushed their offensive in Helmand and killed 37
suspected Taliban. One coalition soldier was killed in firefight in Zabul. Six
Afghan soldiers were killed in roadside bombing near Herat. Two rebels
were killed in Uruzgan province.
th

OTHER ASPECTS
To justify the prolonged occupation, even after the democratization
of Afghanistan, it was necessary to keep the monster of Islamic
militancy or terrorism alive. On 27th April, Australian government
warned of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan.
A month later, EU Envoy conveyed a similar message by warning
Taliban to be prepared for a bloody nose. Germany did it by showing
concern over the situation in northern Afghanistan where its troops were to
be deployed. Annan joined in by inferring that Afghan riots reflected
deeper problems.
On 30th June, British General David Richards said Taliban have
become stronger because Iraq diverted worlds attention, but it is not too
late to put the Taliban back in the box. The Crusaders had rushed to invade
Iraq to avail opportunities presented by the tragedy.
Rice visited Kabul and vowed not to allow Afghanistans ruthless
enemies to succeed. After induction of British troops in troubled south,
Browne said presence of British troops has energized Taliban. Blair warned
his best in the world of tough mission in Afghanistan.

534

The monster, too, did not hesitate in showing its presence. Hekmatyar
criticized Pakistan and Iran for helping US. He vowed to resist occupation
but denied alliance with al-Qaeda or Taliban. Clerics in Kabul urged
Afghans to join Taliban to fight against foreign troops and Afghan
government. Mohammad Kaseem, Taliban commander in Helmand
province, warned that British troops in Afghanistan would die.
Use of brute force remained the hallmark of occupation forces.
The induction of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan gave additional
impetus to indiscriminate use of force to tell Taliban that the newcomers
meant business.
NATO chief considered success in Afghanistan vital. NATO defence
ministers expressed determination to confront a surge in violence in
Afghanistan and press ahead with the military alliances expansion into the
unruly south. NATO cannot afford to fail in Afghanistan, said its secretary
general. In July, Britain sent 900 additional troops to Afghanistan.
Karzai tried to convey the resentment of Afghans by demanding
restraint in coalition attacks. On 24th May, he summoned US commander
over killings of civilians. Summoning was no big deal; Musharraf too has
been summoning Abizaid off and on. All that matters is as to who tells what
to whom.
A week later, Afghan parliament demanded arrest of American troops
involved in the unfortunate incident in Kabul. Mujaddidi, however, accused
some MPs for fueling riots in Kabul. On 22 nd June, Karzai urged the
international community to reassess its approach to the war on terror saying
that deaths of hundreds of Afghans, including Taliban, were not acceptable.
In response to Karzais statement, the coalition forces said they were
doing much more than killing Taliban. Meanwhile, British troops justified
the collateral damage by blaming Taliban for using women and children as
shields. Nevertheless, civilian casualties were termed as main cause of
rebellion for which Afghan forces were also blamed.
While the occupation forces kept committing the war crimes, the UN
remained busy in digging out the evidence of Afghan warlords
involvement in mass killings and torture. When the occupation forces went
on killing spree in southern Afghanistan, the UN picked up the courage to
call for avoiding civilian casualties. But, backing away from Afghanistan is
no option, said the world body.

535

The puppet regime remained under pressure both from Afghans

and its mentors. On 21st May, Taliban leadership council accused Karzai of
misleading the Afghan people and trying to divert their attention from his
governments failures by branding the Taliban-led resistance as Pakistanisponsored.
Afghan troops were once again accused of mistreating Taliban
prisoners; Defence Minister denied the charge. Despite the deplorable
situation in his own country, Karzai had the cheeks to urge China to pay
heed to human rights.
On 25th June, while replying to a question about Mulla Omars
audiotape, Karzai called him a coward and said Taliban were no threat to his
regime. About two weeks later he lamented rising violence in Afghanistan.
Violence and frustration were eating up support for Karzai, reported AFP.
Karzai was also criticized by his masters. Albright termed Karzai little
more than Kabul mayor. He, in endeavour to improve his performance,
announced a plan to recruit tribesmen to battle Taliban. The plan to raise
community police by arming tribesmen in troubled areas was criticized as
it could affect UN disarmament plan. Instead, the US agreed to provide
armoured personnel carriers to Afghan security forces.
In addition to the rise in insurgency, slow process of reconstruction
and revival of economy were eroding Karzais popularity. Afghan hunger
could exacerbate insecurity, warned WFP. But the priorities of the Crusaders
had changed since long, or perhaps reconstruction was never a priority.
Perforce, Karzai called on Taliban to help in reconstruction.
Whatever Afghanistan received was eaten up mostly by corruption,
which in turn fuelled insurgency. Afghan Parliament was constrained to
reject the proposed budget over some expenditure. During the last three
months there were only three reports about reconstruction works. Canadian
aid project was suspended in Kandahar in April. During first week of July,
Saudi Arabia agreed to allocate $ 148 million in aid. Kabul got first fashion
show in decades.
One of the priorities of the Crusaders was expressed by Isabel
Coleman and Swanee Hunt. They asked Afghanistan to make room for its
female leaders. At top of the list, however, remained the eradication of threat
posed by the narcotics produced in Afghanistan. Scott Baldauf reported
that this illegal business generates $ 2.7 billion a year, more than half the
value of the countrys legal economy.
536

He alleged that police officials were involved in drug peddling.

Afghan officials and foreign diplomats increasingly call this central Asian
country a narco-state as top officials find it more profitable to flout laws
than enforce them. Afghan government countered by alleging that
international drug policy think-tank was undermining its campaign to
eradicate opium cultivation and mulled forcing it to leave the country.
Tajik president blamed the West for failing in controlling drug trade.
There are widely differing views on how the US-led eradication program is
going. The United Nations News Service reports that Afghanistan is already
a narco-economy and it is in danger of becoming a narco-state, with drug
production as the largest employer reported Tom Regan.
The West and their puppets in Kabul accused warlords, and in some
cases Taliban, of indulging in drug trade and inciting violence. They planned
to send Afghan officers to learn anti-drug tactics in Singapore. Japan
pledged $ 5 million for anti-drug drive.
Authorities continued with anti-drug drive and during first week of
July, 40 tons of narcotics were burned in Kabul. Poppy growers kept
retaliating. They fired rockets at a police station in Badakhshan. Farmers of
Nangarhar threatened to resume poppy cultivation.

COMMENTS
Now that the Taliban have regrouped, they have become more
sophisticated and deadly in their attacks against the US-led coalition troops
in large swathes of southern and eastern Afghanistan. The Afghan
government, NATO and US military commanders and aid workers concede
that the number of Taliban attacks has increased and their tactics, including
the use of improvised explosive devices have become dangerous. The
Talibans willingness to die would ensure that this Afghan summer would
be long and deadly reported Rahimullah Yusufzai.
With the upsurge in insurgency, the analysts pondered about its
causes; discussed the tactics of Taliban; and western media and analysts
expressed concern about it. Mike Whitney opined that George W Bush has
broken every promise made to the people of Afghanistan. In 2001, he
said he would remove the Taliban, establish order, and rebuild the country
along the lines of the Marshal Plan. He lied on all counts.

537

The Taliban have reclaimed southern Afghanistan, reconstruction has

been miniscule, and theres been no attempt to establish security beyond the
capital of Kabul. Afghanistan continues to languish in grinding poverty
with less clean water and electricity than before the war. It is a failed narcostate with 90% of the countryside under the iron-grip of the regional
warlords and drug-kingpins.
Peter Preston attributed it to the backwardness of Afghans.
Afghanistan, in so many ways, is a medieval country, a land that time has
passed by. It cannot be spun five centuries forward by bemused brigades
from NATO who cant understand who the enemy is or why it hates
them so.
Taliban would have fallen anyway. Thats what happens to every
Afghan regime. It implodes, and is replaced. Communism came and went.
Mulla Omars own brand of militant Islam would have gone too. But wars
against terror dictated something more proactive, more surgical more
supposedly glorious Forget also the thought that more troops will finish
the job.
Carlotta Gall made an observation on tactics of re-emerging Taliban.
The Taliban are running check-points on secondary roads and seizing
control of remote district centres for a night or two before melting away
again. In the most blatant symbol of their dominance of rural areas, the
Taliban have even conducted trials under Islamic law, or Sharia, outside
official Afghan courts, and recently carried out at least one public
execution.
Rahimullah Yusufzai dwelled on the arrival of suicide bombings in
Afghanistan. The idea, originating in the Israeli-occupied Palestine, has
caught on. We have had suicide bombings in Chechnya and other parts of
Russia, Sri Lanka, India, Iraq, and now in Afghanistan and Pakistan. For
sure it has become the preferred mode of attack in places under occupation.
More importantly, there is little that can be done to stop such attacks.
After describing the two videotapes of three Afghan suicide bombers,
he added, more than 30 suicide assaults have been reported from different
parts of Afghanistan during past six months. The figures appear unbelievable
in view of the fact that suicide bombings were unheard of in Afghanistan
during the long years of Soviet military occupation from 1979-89, the
Afghan jihad that devastated the country, and the brutal civil war.
At that time, the Afghans considered suicide bombings cowardly and
preferred dying in frontal assaults. Now times have changed following
538

fatwas by certain Ulema authorizing suicide attacks against foreign

occupation forces. Those Ulema may be few in number but their fatwas have
given Islamic sanction to such deeds. That is all the suicide bombers or their
sponsors needed and this is the reason for the sudden increase in the number
of attacks involving men and women ready to lay down their lives for a
cause.
Rahimullah Yusufzai is undoubtedly an authority on Afghanistan, but
he missed a point while discussing the suicide bombings. During the
period of Soviet occupation Afghan resistance groups were generously
supported by entire world, including America, Europe and even China. They
were provided with plenty of material means to fight the Soviet forces. They
never ran short of means and thus did not resort to self-emulating suicide
attacks against the occupation forces.
During the succeeding civil war, the belligerent sides were at par in
terms of military war material. They again felt no need to resort to suicide
attacks. In the present scenario, in which all those resisting occupation of
their countries by the Crusaders or against oppression have been abandoned
by the world, more significantly by entire ruling elite of the Muslim
countries. They have no means to fight against gunship helicopters or
warplanes showering daisy-cutters. The only way they can hurt the enemy
is to carry out suicide bombings or to some extent by the use of EIDs.
If today, only the Muslim rulers pick up the courage to tell the
Crusaders to end occupations of Muslim lands and oppression against
Muslim people, the suicide bombings will end. This blind spot in their vision
has been caused by the lack of courage and fear of dire consequences.
In view of the above the analyst has acknowledged that now the
times have changed. It can no more be termed a cowardly act. Nor the
blame can be shifted to few clerics who issued fatwas for reasons best
known to them. But, one thing is certain that issue of fatwas as well as
suicide bombers growing in numbers is linked closely to the ground realities
than religious teachings.
Christina Lamb wrote, Iraq has become a model for Afghanistan.
There have been 41 Afghan suicide bombings in the past nine months,
compared with five in the preceding five years. IEDs improvised
explosive devices have become a fact of life.
If there is one factor most responsible for Taliban resurgence it is
the war in Iraq, which distracted the attention of London and Washington
at a crucial time. While US Marines were toppling statues of Saddam
539

Hussein and then finding themselves fighting a bloody insurgency, the

Taliban regrouped and retrained in Pakistan.
More alarmingly, the Taliban are no longer just in the south but have
even moved into the province of Logar, 25 miles from Kabul. Among their
Afghan victims they particularly target police and their relatives as well as
guards, road builders and interpreters for western contractors.
The West was concerned about the increased intensity of the
insurgency. Mike Whitney, while discussing the traffic accident in Kabul,
recalled a similar incident that took place in Fallujah in 2003, which had
grave long-term implications for the US occupation. In that incident US
troops opened fire on residents, who were protesting against on appointment
of mayor, and killed 14 of them. Three years later we can look at that days
violence as a turning point in the course of events in Iraq and the genesis of
the resistance. Now, Iraq is embroiled in a full-scale war and the outcome is
far too certain.
Will the same thing happen in Afghanistan? Tim Albone,
correspondent for the Times of London thinks so. Albone said, Ive spoken
to friends whove worked in Iraq and they say that there was one day when
it all changed. That could be the case here. The Afghans realize that they
can take on the police and take on the Americans they could easily do it
again.
Christina Lamb quoted an officer saying, we expected a few rounds
to be fired, not the full-on ambushes we have seen. They seem wellorganized, well-armed and committed to the cause This mission is
turning out to be far more dangerous than the public and backbenchers
had been led to believe just a few weeks ago, complained Liam Fox, the
shadow defence secretary.
Gwynne Dyer wrote, US and other foreign troops in Afghanistan
are now taking casualties at the same rate as American troops in Iraq
(although the actual numbers are much lower). This was entirely predictable,
but almost impossible to prevent given the strategy that the United States has
pursued since overthrowing the Taliban regime in late 2001.
There will be a guerrilla war in Afghanistan for the indefinite future,
but what was the alternative? Will it get better? No; it will probably just jog
along as a low-level guerrilla war, with occasional peaks of violence like the
present and no end in sight. Damned if you do, and damned if you dont.

540

The Observer complained about inadequacy of troops to ground ratio.

Six British soldiers have now died in the last month in Helmands Sangin
Valley, where British troops are taking a lead role. They are well-briefed and
well-trained but 3,330 soldiers are covering a region four times the size of
Wales. Reinforcements are imperative.
Afghans. however, still continue committing a basic mistake. They
continue attacking in large numbers like the one on Mosa Qala and fighting
pitched battles instead of hit and run tactics. This suits their adversary who is
equipped with lethal weapons which can be delivered from safe standoff
distance. Resultantly, Taliban suffer heavy casualties.
They should not be impatient. The form of warfare suiting them
demands patience. They should bleed the enemy slowly rather trying to
inflict lethal blow. If they keep doing it, time will come when even a minor
blow will hurt the adversary. Their strategy of shock and awe is far different
from one adopted by their adversary who uses lethal bombs for mass
killings.
When anyone talks about militancy in Afghanistan, or perhaps in any
part of the world, there is invariably a mention of Pakistan . Peter
Preston accepted that fighting in Afghanistan is a melee of different
groupings, some idealistic, some criminal, uniting as usual against any
outside force. But, he added that the Taliban, with a little malign help from
their Pakistani friends, were and are young Afghans, not some foreign
implant
Others were not mild in accusing Pakistan like Peter Preston. India,
for example out rightly blamed Pakistan for killing of its engineer by
Taliban. The News, while rejecting the allegation, resorted to counterallegations which, however, were not baseless.
The Taliban, who wanted all Indians out of Afghanistan by Sunday
evening to let Suryanarayan go, appear highly perturbed by Indias presence
in their country. Though no reporting has been done as to why they are so
adamant in forcing the Indians ouster, tongues are wagging about a new
strategic great game being played out in the Afghan territory, with
everyone from United States to China and regional heavyweights like India,
Pakistan and Iran falling upon each others heels to have their fingers in the
Afghan pie. Given the muddle that makes up todays Afghanistan, its
important to know who opposes who and who is backed by whom. For the
Taliban, its almost natural to oppose India which in turn is supported by
most people in the current administration in Kabul.
541

For India, the Talibans antipathy is not just a function of internal

Afghan politics. When Indias foreign secretary Shyam Saran condemned
Suryanarayans murder as a pre-mediated brutal act, he also mentioned some
sponsors without naming names. Reminding Pakistan that it has an
obligation to fight Taliban terrorism together with the international
community including India, Saran said the murder was meant to create fear
which explains why it took place hours before an Indian team had landed in
Kabul to negotiate Suryanarayans release.
M K Bhadrakumar while writing about the Kabul incident said, Tajik
alienation should not have come as a surprise. Anger was building up at the
systematic neglect that the Afghan government meted out to Panjshir
Massouds power base over the recent period In a recent interview
Rabbani refused point-blank to put blame on Pakistan for growing
instability in Afghanistan. Instead, he went on to exonerate Pakistani
officialsconveying in subtle terms his antipathy toward the dispensation in
Kabul and at the same time renewing his old links with Peshawar and
Islamabad.
Farhan Bokhari discussed the issue with reference to the visit of US
Secretary of State. This weeks visit to Pakistan and Afghanistan by
Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, ostensibly to pacify the
continuing Pak-Afghan rift, must eventually become nothing more than a
belated and perhaps even half-baked attempt to deal with a complex security
challenge.
Rice is bound to return to Washington after receiving assurances of
cooperation from Pakistan and Afghanistan. But in the past too, such words
of reassurance have seldom turned themselves into long-term
commitments. Proverbially, agreements are bound to be violated possibly
even before the ink that is used to write them dries.
The bottom line for the US, however, is another element, which is
essentially central to its emerging policy failures. Having taken the initiative
to unleash a not so well defined war on terror, the Bush Administration
and its allies including the Pakistani and Afghan regimes now live with
the consequences.
As for dealing with leaders such as Karzai and Pakistans President
General Pervez Musharraf, the US cannot ignore its blatant oversight of
regimes whose democratic character remains open to question. Karzai is
widely seen anchored on Washingtons support while Musharraf remains

542

controversial as a man who simultaneously holds charge of the military and

the civilian administration.
As it presses the regimes in Afghanistan and Pakistan to cooperate
more and bicker less in confronting militancy and terrorism, the US must
also seek to promote a more democratic environment, which is built upon
genuine popular aspirations.
Before discussing the failing strategy of the occupation forces,
comments of some analysts on Kabul incident are reproduced for better
understanding of the popular sentiment, particularly in the capital. This
would help further understanding of the causes of prevalent unrest.
M K Bhadrakumar, while analyzing the violent public reaction to the
incident, wrote, the twin pillars of Jamiat-i-Islami ideology Islam and
Afghan nationalism are also, curiously, the driving force behind
todays Afghan resistance spearheaded by the Taliban. Herein lies the
terrible beauty (to borrow the words of W B Yeats) of what happened in
Kabul on Monday.
Rabbanis platform can easily converge with that of the Talibanled Afghan resistance or of Hekmatyar. In fact, the Canadian daily
Toronto Star reported recently that clerics in Kabul mosques had been urging
worshippers to join the resistance against Karzais government and the
occupation troops.
Dostum was appointed chief of staff, but it soon began to dawn on
him that his new job carried more rank than responsibility. Feeling belittled,
he stormed out of Kabul and returned to his native Shibirghan. The
relatively placid northern provinces have since become volatile.
True, NATO has come into physical possession of a country far away
from Europe, where it is at liberty to act without the prying eyes of
international law But the riots in Kabul are a reminder that Afghanistan is
a country that is deceptively easy to invade but almost impossible to
occupy.
Juan Cole said, riots in Kabul, in which altogether 14 died and over
100 were wounded and during which thousands thronged the streets
chanting Death to America, also produced violent attacks and gunfire
throughout the city, with hotel windows being sprayed with machine gun
fire. The protests were sparked by a traffic accident. But they have other
roots.

543

The fresh US air strike in Helmand killed 50 Afghans on Monday.

Over 400 Afghans have been killed by US bombing and military actions in
the past two weeks. While most of these are Pushtuns native guerrillas
(coded by the US as Taliban), some have demonstrably been innocent
civilians A recent US air strike that killed 16 children, women and noncombatant men provoked an enormous outcry in Afghanistan, and sparked
President Hamid Karzai to begin a presidential inquiry into it.
While most anti-US actions in Afghanistan come from the Pushtun
ethnic group, these Kabul protests, which paralyzed the capital and resulted
in the imposition of a curfew, heavily involved Tajiks. Kabul is largely
Tajik city, and the Tajiks mostly hated the Taliban with a passion, and many
high officials in the Karzai government have been Tajiks.
The demonstrators Monday carried posters of Ahmed Shah Massoud,
the Tajik leader of the Northern Alliance who had played a major role in
expelling Soviet troops in the late 1980s and then fought the Taliban
tenaciously before being assassinated shortly before September 11, 2001.
Significant numbers of Tajiks are clearly now running against
the US and that is a very bad sign indeed. Al-Hayats Jamal Ismail in
Islamabad suggests that some of the Tajik discontent derives from the way
Karzai has eased out Northern Alliance, Tajik leaders such as Marshal
Muhammad Fahim and former cabinet minister Yunus Qanuni, reducing
Tajik dominance of the government in the name of ethnic diversity (and of
mitigating Pushtun anger over the imbalance).
The News expressed similar views. It would be fair to say that an
element of paranoia has crept into the way the US military is operating
in Afghanistan. Mondays air raid on a mosque in Helmand province is
unlikely to have endeared the Americans to the Afghans, 50 of whom were
said to have been killed in the strike.
Tuesdays violence is also indicative of a widespread hostility on a
popular level against the US military presence and it may well widen if
such incidents recur. To some extent, what has happened in Kabul also
vindicates what Islamabad has been saying in response to the repeated
allegations made against it by Hamid Karzais government: that some of the
violence in Afghanistan is home-grown.
Khaleej Times opined that while the riots have been blamed on an
accident involving the US military convoy and subsequent firing by the
troops on an agitated crowd, the explosive anger and the frustration
against the Karzai government and his foreign backers had been clearly
544

building for quite some time. It only needed a minor spark like this to
explode into a raging inferno.
Why is the coalition bent on alienating the very people it went to
liberate? Surely, bombing the mosques, madrassas and civilian
population is not the best way to win the battle for Afghan hearts and
minds. Five years after the invasion, Afghanistan is craving for peace and
security let alone luxuries like jobs, education, health
The US and its allies have to realize the grave challenges facing
them. Time to put Afghanistan back on the track is running out and the
guests already appear to have overstayed their welcome. At the heart of
Afghanistans instability lies the alienation of the majority of its people,
especially the marginalization of Pushtun majority.
Doubtless, the conservative party with a hopeless old-fashioned
world view made some mistakes but it continues to enjoy wide support
among the Afghan people largely because of its success in restoring the rule
of law, peace and security in the country. Engaging Taliban and encouraging
them to join the mainstream may be the best bet before the US-led coalition
to restore lasting peace in Afghanistan.
The New York Times wrote, unless Washington starts correcting
its mistakes, parts of Afghanistan could start tumbling back toward the kind
of anarchic chaos that once made such areas an attractive sanctuary for
international terrorists like Osama bin Laden.
The warning signs go well beyond this weeks deadly outbreak of
anti-American rioting in Kabul the worst violence there since the Taliban
were evicted from Afghanistans capital in 2001. And Kabul is widely
acknowledged to be the most secure place in Afghanistan More than four
years later, Afghanistans patience is running out. Americas military
presence is seen as narrowly focused on Washingtons own agenda of
hunting down al-Qaeda fighters and indifferent to Afghan civilian casualties
and Afghanistans own security needs.
Rahimullah Yusufzai was of the view that once again Americans
have been taken by surprise, this time in Kabul. Earlier, they were
surprised when the Iraqis didnt garland their soldiers when they invaded
Iraq to liberate them from the clutches of Saddam Hussein.
Many Americans believe the Iraqis were ungrateful. Soon they would
have the same opinion of the Afghans. The Afghans, as we are made to
believe, were liberated from the oppressive Taliban. But five years down the

545

road, they seem to have forgotten the sacrifices rendered by the US in terms
of men and money so that they could live in a freer society than the one
imposed on them by the Taliban.
The demonstratorswere angry with the US for the arrogance of
its soldiers and with President Hamid Karzai for his inability to adequately
voice the complaints of the Afghan people over civilian deaths at the hands
of American and other Western troops. It would be nave to expect Karzai to
criticize the US, which brought him into power
The intriguing aspect of the deadly riots was the preponderance of
Tajiks among the violent protestors Questions are already being asked as
to why the Tajiks in particular and the Afghans in general are turning
against the US and all things Western, From NGOs such as Care
International that saw its premises in Kabul torched to guesthouses, mostly
serving Westerners, that too were attacked.
The sudden increase in Taliban attacks against US-led coalition and
Afghan forces have turned large parts of the southwest and central
Afghanistan into a virtual battleground and no-go area. More than 900
people including combatants and civilians have been killed since the
beginning of 2006 with half of them dying in May.
The civilian deaths, as many as 34 according to most independent
accounts, in Azizi village in Kandahars Panjwai district after a bombing
raid by US warplanes, further inflamed anti-American sentiment in the
Pushtun belt bordering Pakistan. There were also civilian casualties in
similar US aerial strikes in Helmand and Uruzgan.
After mentioning some of the major incidents of civilian killings,
Yusufzai added, besides, there have been numerous incidents of innocent
bystanders getting killed at the hands of nervous and trigger-happy US and
other Western soldiers soon after explosion of roadside bombs targeting their
convoys.
What surprised analysts, and indeed the Americans, was the intensity
of the anti-US feelings in non-Pushtun localities as exemplified by the
riots in the Afghan capital. Nobody expected that Kabul or its northern parts
such as Khairkhana inhabited mostly by Tajiks, would erupt in anti-US fury.
It is unlikely that the Americans would learn any lessons from the
Kabul riots. despite eyewitness accounts that American soldiers fired at
the stone-throwing protestors with machine-guns fitted on their military
vehicles and killed several of them, US army spokesmen have been insisting

546

that they were firing shots over the heads of the crowd. Preliminary US
military investigations have already absolved the American soldier-driver of
any wrong-doing.
It is claiming that a brake failure caused the US truck to plough into
about 12 civilian vehicles killing six people and injuring many others. By
insisting that the US troops fired in self-defence at protestors armed with
nothing more than stones, wooden sticks and spades, the Americans have
made it clear that there was no case to be made against its soldiers. Karzais
criticism of agitators who had resorted to violence in the aftermath of the
traffic accident also appeared to shift the blame to the enemies of the
state as the Afghan president referred to them while sparing the
Americans.
Before long the riots and the loss of lives in Kabul would be
forgotten because Afghanistan is still a dangerous place and there is every
possibility of more such incidents taking place in remote provinces away
from the reach of the media It is time for some soul-searching because
time is running out for the US and its allies to consolidate their gains in
Afghanistan, which rightly or wrongly is described as the only victory in
Americas war on terror.
A large number of analysts and media identified the anomalies in the
strategy of the occupation forces and tried to formulate solutions.
Some shortcomings of the strategy were referred to during media debate on
causes of Kabul incident. These are enumerated in the succeeding
paragraphs.
Gwynne Dyer opined that the first mistake lied in invading
Afghanistan, which is an easy country to invade, but an almost
impossible country to occupy long-term because of the rugged terrain, the
deep ethnic divisions and the profound xenophobia that so many foreign
invasions have fostered in Afghan culture.
Thats why Osama bin Laden wanted the United States to invade
Afghanistan in the first place. It was an obvious strategy for al-Qaeda to
choose, since bin Laden had been a first-hand witness to the long ordeal that
the US inflicted on the Soviet Union after it sucked Moscow into occupying
Afghanistan in 1979.
Sending in a large American Army to control and transform the
country would have fallen into al-Qaedas trap and created a much bigger
guerrilla war of resistance and besides, Rumsfeld was reluctant to commit

547

many troops to Afghanistan because he was saving them for the invasion he
really wanted to do in Iraq.
Rumsfeld sent in only about five hundred CIA agents and Special
Forces troops carrying suitcases stuffed with cash to buy alliances with
Afghanistans numerous ethnic minority groups, and laser target designators
to call in US air strikes on Taliban forces He successfully evaded the trap
that Bin Laden had laid but his strategy implied that the US would
have very little influence over the political shape of post-Taliban
Afghanistan. It had put the warlords in power.
Farhan Bokhari wrote, The US-led attack on Afghanistan after the
New York terrorist attacks, which led to the installation of Afghan President
Hamid Karzais regime, has obviously failed in pushing ahead with the
twin objectives of providing credible political representation and
economic rejuvenation to the Central Asian country.
Farooq Sulehria mentioned the double standards of the West in
promoting the democratic value of tolerance. The New York Times and Co
are losing their appetite over the victory of intolerance in Holland and
keeping mum about a victory of intolerance in Afghanistan. The Afghan
warlords co-opted by Washington physically attacked Malalai Joya, On May
7, while the Afghan parliament packed with collaborating warlords, was
eulogizing the April 28 victory (the day the communist regime was
overthrown), Joya dared to speak the truth.
She did the same four years ago at the loya jirga convened to
legitimize US occupation. While all the big beards at the jirga were assuring
the US occupation of collaboration, Joya stood up and exposed both the
occupation and the collaborators in their faces. This daring act made her
popular all over Afghanistan that she was elected to parliament.
On May 7, she told the Afghan parliament that April 28 unleashed
atrocities unheard of in Afghanistans history. She thought April 28 was a
day of mourning and not a V-Day. As soon as Joyas speech was over she
was physically attacked. Some warlords insulted her by calling her names
including a prostitute. Some warlords ordered their followers to rape her
Notorious warlord Abul Rasul Sayyaf ordered someone to sit by the door
and knife Joya as she walked out.
Though a great solidarity demonstration was held in Joyas native
Farah province to support her and she received hundreds of phone calls from
sympathizers expressing support, all was quiet on western front. Muslim

548

extremists pose no problem as long as they are collaborating with the

western occupation of a Muslim country.
HDS Greenway blamed US by saying that Afghanistan might have
been a Bush Administrations success if it were not for resources being
pulled away to service Iraq, anti-American riots in the capital even older
ghosts of the British in Kabul.
The most glaring fault in the strategy rested in indiscriminate use of
brute force. Los Angeles Times was of the view that most Afghans want
foreign help, but they do not want to become collateral damage of
foreign occupiers whether from the United State, the United Nations or
even relief agencies
Karzai urged the international community to reassess its approach to
the war on terror saying that the deaths of hundreds of Afghans, including
Taliban, was not acceptable. His sincerity in regretting the deaths of his
Afghan/Pushtun brothers may be doubted, but the truth in his statement
could not be brushed aside.
Rahimullah Yusufzai had mentioned a few incidents of collateral
damage while discussing Kabul incidents. Subsequently he reported more
incidents of killing of civilians. During recent operations in southern
Afghanistan, at least 60 civilians, including women and children, were killed
in US air strikes on three villages in Uruzgan on 10 th July. A few days earlier
15 civilians belonging to two families were killed in Ghech Zar village in
Helmand province The only survivor was three-year old boy who was
injured. In another bombing 24 civilians were killed in air strikes on villages
of Panjwai district in Kandahar.
Los Angeles Times, however, saw the remedy in sterner counterinsurgency operation. The occupiers have to invest the military resources
to crush the Taliban decisively and insist that Pakistan do the same
Finally, the United States must begin to treat Afghanistan as a sovereign
state whose citizens lives have to be protected.
The recent events indicated that the biggest threat to life and property
of Afghans is posed by the occupation forces. Therefore, saner observers
like, Gwynne Dyer differed with the approach suggested above. What
Washington needs to do is fight a lot smarter. It should begin talks at once
with Afghanistans government to arrive at a mutually satisfactory
agreement on basic ground rules governing American military personnel in
their interactions with Afghan civilians.

549

The Jordan Times opined that of course, the Taliban must be defeated
militarily. The past is proof that the world cannot tolerate a sanctuary for the
forces of extremism. But the military is only part of the struggle. Just as
important if not more so is the need to create an economy and a
society that betters the lives of ordinary Afghans and enables them to
resist the Taliban.
Khaleej Times suggested that the US and allied forces must see to it
that the Taliban are brought back into the mainstream, so that they do
not feel isolated and resort to vengeful acts. The Pushtuns must also be
brought back into the ruling fold along with others who matter Taking all
sides into confidence and not antagonizing groups that once wielded power
is the best way to move forward and establish some semblance of peace, law
and order.
In a subsequent editorial, the newspaper added, this is a pointless war
dictated by lop sided priorities. And it is time for the coalition of the
willing to change its strategy in Afghanistan. Its mission in the Central
Asian country cannot succeed unless it reviews and reconfigures its
approach to Taliban and the Pushtun majority. The former rulersstill
command massive support and following in the majority community for
their role in ending the civil war and chaos of the post Soviet era.
For all their flaws, Taliban had not only put an end to the terrible
infighting between various mujahideen groups after the Soviet pullout
restoring peace and stability in the country, but they had also managed to
eliminate the opium trade and reign the various drug lords from Afghanistan.
This is why many still rue the passing of that era.
It therefore makes sense for the coalition to engage the political
and military force that still has presence all over the country. That may
be the only way to end the conflict and bring lasting peace to the strategic
Central Asian country. This is important as ordinary Afghans have grown
really tired of the current situation in the country.
Greg Mills and Terence McNamee opined that to beat the insurgency
and win over Afghans, we need a strategy that rests on four pillars:
First is to link development activity with security action. That means
showing that foreign-designed plans can benefit citizens not just
international consultants

550

 Second, development projects will have to focus on sectors with the

greatest economic multiplier effect, most likely roads, housing, water
and power.
Third is to rethink international attempts to demobilize the 1,800 or
so illegally armed groups that remain.
Fourth, the Wests focus has to be on the art of the possible, which
may involve holding back, for the moment, on drug-eradication
With the expansion of the mandate of peacekeepers the buck has
been passed to NATO forces. The Washington Post urged them to press on.
A decisive defeat of the Taliban offensive could help consolidate a stillfragile democratic government, and it could validate NATO as a military
alliance capable of tackling the security challenges of the 21 st century
The first results have been encouraging. Canadian and British troops have
fought to clear a Taliban-infested area just 15 miles from the southern city of
Kandahar; with US air support, scores of enemy fighters have been killed
and several senior commanders captured.
Though the appearance of relatively large Taliban formations is itself
an alarming sign of the movements revival, any expectations by its
commanders that they could roll over the new NATO units has been
shattered The Afghan fighting season, however, is only beginning, and
many reports suggest that much of the rural south is now infiltrated by the
Taliban Given the scale of the military challenge, the planned withdrawal
of 3,000 US troops from Afghanistan this summer looks increasingly
risky.
The Guardian, too, expressed similar apprehensions. Distracted by
bitter divisions over Iraq and helped by the failure of the EU to advance its
own defence ambitions, it has made enormous efforts to prove itself
relevant.
NATO, running the International Security Assistance Force, is to
increase its strength from 9,000 to 21,000 by November the highest level
since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Its troops are now moving south,
beyond Kabul and the quiet north and west while US forces, in reduced
numbers, run Operation Enduring Freedom in the east, hunting the so-called
remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
The problem is that NATOs expanded area of operations is
difficult territory. Iraqi-style suicide bomber, once unknown in Afghanistan,
have arrived. Roadside bombs are getting more sophisticated. This weekend
551

the union flag replaced the stars and stripes flying over the lawless, opiumrich Helmand province. In Uruzgan and Kandahar, where the Dutch and
Canadians are deploying, Taliban fighters are operating openly and in
strength. The security situation is worse than is generally realized.
It is no surprise, then, that talk of mission creep is prompting
whispered comparisons with Vietnam, even in Whitehall Taliban
spokesmen boast of planning to attack British troops, so no one should be
surprised if they do. NATOs role is to help improve the lot of an
impoverished people in a war-ravaged country. This daunting mission enjoys
broad domestic political support, unlike the deployment in Iraq. But that
support cannot be taken for granted and may well crumble if there are
casualties. The government and the public need to be aware of the dangers
involved.
Hasan Suroor wrote, question are being asked about the precise
objective of the British troops in Afghanistan and there is talk of an Iraqlike mission creep just when the sense was that the battle had been mostly
won and what had remained of the Taliban fighters were merely remnants
Indeed, Britains Defence Secretary John Reid until recently was so
optimistic about the situation in Afghanistan that he virtually ruled out a
combat role for British troops saying they would only assist Afghan
authorities in destroying the poppy crop.
Analysts blame the crisis on the confused objectives of the
British army in Afghanistan namely winning the hearts and minds of
ordinary Afghans while at the same time helping with the governments antinarcotics campaign which effectively means depriving people of their main
source of income without offering them any alternative means.
There has been criticism of the quality of intelligence that
prompted the original peace-keeping-only strategy, and questions are
being raised about Pakistans role in the way Taliban militants have been
able to launch themselves again.
New Statesman said that it was not so much mission creep as mission
deceit. It is clear that a contingent of just 800 fighting infantrymen is all
but useless for taking control of Helmand, the most lawless of the
provinces. At the time of writing, five British soldiers have been killed in the
past three weeks. Battles are increasingly frequent against Taliban fighters,
who have the organization of a conventional force and the fervor of suicide
terrorists. Much of the funding continues to come from Pakistan, including
its security service, the ISI.
552

Ministers indicate that the number of British forces will double. But
in order to be effective, that number would have to increase by far more.
Meanwhile, the Americans have launched Operation Mountain Thrust, a
four-province sweep involving 11,000 troops. The aim is to cripple the
insurgency before NATO takes command of the south at the end of this
month. By relying on aerial bombardments they are merely fuelling the
hostility.
Tulin Dalogl quoted Hikmet Cetin, NATOs senior civilian
representative in Afghanistan from Turkey. NATO can not fail in
Afghanistan. That will be the end of NATO. Then we cant succeed
anywhere. NATO Secretary General said, if we dont go to Afghanistan,
Afghanistan will come to us as a terror, as a drug trafficker.
He acknowledges that putting together the institutions of government
and statehood, along with educating the people, will take a long time. But he
refused to compare Afghanistan with Iraq. There is no deep ethnic and
religious division in Afghanistan like there is in Iraq.
But the prospects remained gloomy as observed by Brain Whitaker.
Report issued by the House of Commons foreign affairs committee at the
weekend concluded that despite the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (and
to some extent because of that) the threat to Britain from al-Qaeda has
probably increased The committee said bringing stability to
Afghanistan remains a key British interest but finds little evidence of
that happening. There has been a worrying deterioration in the security
situation.
The difficulties faced in restoring normalcy resulted in blaming
Karzai for incompetence. Pamela Constable observed that as a sense of
insecurity spreads, a rift is growing between the president and some of
the foreign civilian and military establishments whose money and
firepower have helped rebuild and defend the country for nearly five years.
The analyst, however, did not mention as to what was being rebuilt and
against whom Afghanistan was being defended by the occupation forces.
The president had a window of opportunity to lead and make difficult
decisions, but that window is closing fast, said one foreign military official
in Kabul who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of
the sensitivity of the subject This is a crucial time, and there is
frustration and finger-pointing on all sides, the official said. President
Karzai is the only alternative for this country, but if he attacks us, we cant
help him project his vision. And if he goes down, we all go down with him.
553

In the past year, security has gotten worse and worse, said Sayed
Tamin, 42, a tailor in a working-class Kabul district who was hemming a
pair of pants. The Taliban have been able to come back because the
government is weak. There is corruption in high places and nothing for the
poor. People are very, very disappointed.
Karzai and his advisers have taken bitter umbrage at the criticism,
saying they have tried their best to govern and secure the country under
nearly impossible conditions. They accuse their foreign allies of unfairly
blaming the president for problems he did not create.
At a news conference Karzaisuggested that they needed to make a
strategic reassessment of the anti-insurgent fight here and look to causes
beyond Afghanistans borders. The president has previously accused
Pakistan of harbouring and aiding insurgents.
Karzai bristled at international criticism that greeted his recent
naming of 13 police officials, some of whom have been accused of human
rights abuses. This is our decision, and what we do is suitable for
Afghanistan, Karzai said.
Foreign officials and analysts said the appointments went directly
against their advice and were made on the basis of ethnic and political
balance, rather than professional qualifications. Some feared they also were
a sign of Karzais submission to powerful opponents who seek to
destabilize his government.
This shows a bazaar mentality toward governing, said a European
official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Hes making decisions
for short-term stability that go against his own interests and the long-term
interests of building the country. As a result, international support for him is
eroding, and it could become a real rift at the worst possible time.
Another area of disagreement has been Karzais recent suggestion
that community police forces might be created to protect remote,
vulnerable areas where security forces have little presence. To many foreign
observers, this raises the specter of reviving Islamic and tribal militias,
after four years of costly international efforts to disarm, demobilize and
reintegrate them into civilian life.
While no one is suggesting that any imminent withdrawal of foreign
military or economic support is likely, some European governments which
do not share Washingtons investment in Afghanistan as a role model for
modern Muslim democracy have begun to question the wisdom of costly

554

long-term economic commitments and the risk of ongoing high battlefield

casualties.
There is an awful feeling that everything is lurching downwards,
said a Western diplomat speaking on the condition of anonymity. Nearly
five years on, there is no rule of law, no accountability. The Afghans know
it is all a charade and they see us as not only complicit but actively
involved.
The aides said that while Afghans have a right to be impatient with
the slow pace of institutional reforms and alarmed by the growing insurgent
threat, the foreign powers often failed to treat Karzai as a legitimate
president and tried to micromanage his government.
The Guardian also lodged a complaint against Karzai. Alarm has
been heightened too by President Karzais appointment of a Kabul
police chief linked to past atrocities, and by plans to create units of armed
tribesman to keep the Taliban at bay in remote southern areas. That would be
a return to the sort of warlordism, which did so much to reduce Afghanistan,
under the Soviet occupation, and afterwards, to its present parlous failed
state, as well as undermine a vital disarmament programme supposed to help
boost the creation of an Afghan national army.
Christina Lamb wrote, I cannot think of anywhere I have been where
there is such a chasm between the reality on the ground and the claims of
the international community inside their heavily guarded air-conditioned
compounds It is quite clear that the Taliban are the strongest they have
been since their fall, taking over a number of districts not just in their
southern heartlands but moving near Kabul, in places like Ghazni only 100
miles south.
Rather than burying themselves in the sand, both the international
community and the Afghan government should have seen the riots as a
wake-up call. As gunshots and burning raged for six hours, President Karzai
was locked inside the palace terrified, not surprisingly given the number of
his predecessors who have been killed inside those walls.
Rory Stewart refrained from putting entire blame on the accused.
While failing to destroy their enemies, the coalition also weakens their
best allies. Senior coalition officials whisper to journalists that President
Karzai is indecisive; they complain about local corruption, violence and
inefficiency.

555

The Crusaders failure in fulfilling the promises regarding

reconstruction remained the main cause of theirs and their puppets
problems. The Observer wrote, grinding poverty remains a daily reality; a
government that cannot guarantee order and justice or offer the prospect of
better life will lose its popular base. President Hamid Karzai is under intense
and growing pressure; disillusion is growing.
The war currently being fought in the south was avoidable. As in
Iraq, a hard job has been made much harder. America and Europe left the
southern provinces to stew for four years, hoping that the difficulties there
would somehow just go away. And though the money pledged to
reconstruction sounds considerable, one recent study found that international
aid to Afghanistan equals 30 pounds per person, as compared with 400
pounds in Bosnia and 130 pounds in Iraq.
Yet, success is possible. It will need much more money, much more
political attention, and many more troops than anyone has previously
admitted. Having a coalition that is truly international not just composed
of Americans and Europeans will help.
Simon Jenkins said, we declare war. We bomb. We conquer. We
then pretend to rebuild. But there is no rebuilding, just collateral damage.
In Belgrade, Baghdad and Kabul, the last three cities assaulted by Britain in
war, millions may be spent on aid, but buildings are left as piles of rubble.
David R Sands quoted Said Jawad, Afghanistans ambassador to
Washington, who complained that only 5 percent of the more than $ 11
billion in international assistance to Afghanistan went directly to
government, giving ministers and bureaucracies in Kabul little opportunity
to build up domestic expertise to oversee development.
Failure in reviving economy through reconstruction has resulted
in many problems which are directly or indirectly related to the security
environments. Ethan Casey reported, Nasir Aziz is one-third Zahir Shahs
age but partakes of the same historical memory. Nasir, Seattle-based
software engineer, has pointed views about Americas role in Afghanistan
and its relationship with Pakistan. America was about 12 years late in
supporting Afghanistan, he says, and even so, it appears that support is still
not coming in as promised. Theyre basically repeating the history in the
wake of the Russian pullout and creating another void that will lead to the
Taliban version 2 or something else just as bad that we wont be able to
predict or control. The recent upsurge in poppy production in the wake of the
US invasion is a very good indicator of a present and future marriage of
556

convenience between drug producers and Taliban militia that bodes ill for
everyone, especially the NATO and US forces in Afghanistan.

CONCLUSION
Occupation forces have been far more ruthless in using excessive
force in their counter-insurgency operations as compared to Iraq. This aspect
has been least reported because of medias focus on the Middle East. In Iraq,
the occupation forces has adopted indirect approach by pitching Sunnis and
Shias against each other, but in Afghanistan the bloodletting is entirely the
holy duty performed by the Crusaders.
Only the incidents that occur in big cities, like the one in Kabul,
occasionally draw the attention of media and the analysts, but much graver
incidents in far flung areas are ignored. For example the bombing of the
mosque in Helmand was far graver war crime as compared to the traffic
accident. Accidents are seldom termed deliberate acts, but bombing was
surely a planned criminal act.
During the process of handing over the responsibility of southern
Afghanistan, the occupation forces deliberately used excessive force to
create an impact of shock and awe so that the new incumbent could
undertake the task with comparative ease. The killings were so widespread
and massive that even the puppet regime could not absorb it. Karzai,
however, could do no mare than telling his Pushdown brothers to eat their
your Shourba and enjoy the afternoon nap. The elected parliament of a
subjugated nation could do no more than passing (or having) some motions.
20th July 2006

PHASE III WEEK II

Israel continued dispensing collective punishment to Lebanese for
Hezbollahs crime of defying the Zionists. Israeli air strikes and artillery fire
killed 57 people on 19th July. Two Israeli soldiers were killed in Lebanon and
three others were wounded. Rockets fired by Hezbollah killed two Israelis in
Nazareth.
Next day, at least 72 Lebanese were killed in Israeli air strikes. Three
Israelis were reported killed. Musharraf appealed for sanity in Lebanon
rather than directly asking Israel. Pakistani TV channels were advised to stop
showing pictures of accidents, blasts and other violence.

557

Russia said Israeli offensive overstepped the mark. The

unprecedented scale of victims and destruction bear witness to the fact that
the actions that were announced to (free the captured Israeli servicemen)
have gone far beyond the bounds of an anti-terror operation said Russian
Foreign Ministry.
On 21st July, Israel asked Lebanese to leave border villages and
recalled 3,000 reservists. Lebanese death toll reached 344. Nasrallah refused
to free Israeli soldiers without release of Lebanese prisoners. France accused
US of blocking UN call for immediate ceasefire. The United States doesnt
want to arrive at this solution immediately. Indonesia and Malaysia showed
willingness to send troops for peacekeeping.
Israel kept up air blitz next day, focusing on communication and
electricity networks. More troops were concentrated along the border for
ground offensive. Clashes were reported in Marun al-Ras in central sector of
southern Lebanon. Israel claimed that Hezbollah forces suffered many
casualties. Two Israelis were wounded in rocket attack on Carmiel. Death
toll of Lebanese rose to 352, Israelis to 33 and Gazans to 106.
Hezbollah fighters claimed hitting three Israeli tanks. Lebanese
celebrated as al-Manar showed pictures of destroyed tanks. Let them invade
us again, said Mahmoud Abu Zeid, who had lived through the 1982 assault.
This time there is real resistance. The last time there was just a few guns.
America rejected ceasefire terming it as false promise and instead
sped up logistic support for Israel including provision of precision-guided
bombs. Bush again accused Syria and Iran of supporting Hezbollah
terrorists. Pakistan sought immediate UN intervention. Thousands
protested across UK against Israeli attacks.
Eight Lebanese were killed and more than 100 wounded on 23 rd July.
Two Israelis were killed and 15 wounded in rocket attack on Haifa. Death
toll of Lebanese reached 368 and of Israelis 37. Syria wanted an immediate
ceasefire, but warned to step in if Israeli troops enter Lebanon, because by
doing so Israeli will be within 20 km of Damascus.
Rice planned to pursue lasting solution instead of ceasefire. Israel
wanted NATO troops to maintain buffer zone. Bolton did not want the
peacekeepers under UN helmets. Britain asked America to understand the
price being paid by ordinary Lebanese. UN official said Israeli bombing
broke humanitarian law. Ahmedinejad asked Israel to leave Middle East.

558

Next day, fierce clashes were reported near Bint Jabeil. An Israeli
helicopter crashed in northern Israel killing two crew members. Hezbollah
claimed shooting down the helicopter. Death toll of Lebanese reached 372.
US rushed supply of bunker busters to Israel on urgent basis.
Rice held talks with Siniora in Beirut to show support for Lebanese
people. She thanked Siniora for his courage and steadfastness. She also met
Shia speaker on parliament, Nabi Berri, who has contacts with Syria and
Hezbollah. Chirac demonstrated solidarity of the Crusaders by joining hands
with Bush and Blair over Lebanon and Syria. Maliki flayed Lebanons
destruction by Israel.
On 25th July, Israel refused to stop aggression as its troops entered
border town of Bint Jbeil. Two Israeli soldiers were reported killed in
fighting and two airmen were killed in helicopter crash. Death toll reached
394 and 116 in Lebanon and Gaza respectively. Hamid Mir while reporting
from Lebanon said the media grossly underestimated the losses. Israel had
lost 42 people, including 24 soldiers.
Israel asked Rome moot to denounce Hezbollah. US, EU, UN, WB,
Russia and Saudi Arabia agreed to attend the moot. All of them were more
than willing to listen to Israeli demand. Moot was likely to demand
disarming of Hezbollah as precondition of ceasefire.
Rice said it was time for a new Middle East and reiterated that an
immediate ceasefire would only put off a long-term settlement. A durable
solution will be one that strengthens the forces of peace and democracy in
the region. Bush saw no contradiction in sending relief aid to Lebanon and
speeding up arms supply to Israel.
Till the end of second week of war, Israel hesitated in launching any
major ground operation; perhaps, it had the intelligence that Hezbollah
fighters were well-prepared to take on such offensive. Therefore, it focused
on destruction by air strikes. The Crusaders worked to allow maximum time
to Israel for this purpose and their media justified Israeli aggression and at
the same time blamed Hezbollah for the death and destruction perpetrated on
Lebanese. Muslim rulers watched all this helplessly.

AGRESSION
The analysts, while discussing the present killings and destruction,
also recalled the history of aggression against Lebanon. Robert Fisk
wrote, some cities seem forever doomed. When the Crusaders arrived at
559

Beirut on their way to Jerusalem in the 11th century, they slaughtered every
man, woman and child in the city. In the First World War, Ottoman Beirut
suffered a terrible famine; the Turkish army had commandeered all the grain
and the Allied powers blocked the coast
How does this happen to Beirut? For 30 years, Ive watched this
place die and then rise from the grave and then die again, its apartment
blocks pitted with so many bullets they looked like Irish lace, its people
massacring each other. One thing he did not say directly that in every
disaster there was the intriguing hand of the Crusaders.
I lived here through 15 years of civil war that took 150,000 lives, and
two Israeli invasions and years of Israeli bombardments that cost lives of
further 20,000 of its peoplemoral people whose generosity amazes every
foreigner, whose gentleness puts any Westerner to shame, and whose
suffering we almost always ignore.
They look like us, the people of Beirut. The have light-coloured skin
and speak beautiful English and French. They travel the world But what
are we saying of their fate today as the Israelis in some of their cruelest
attacks on this city and the surrounding countryside tear them from
their homes, bomb them on river bridges, cut them off food and water and
electricity? We say that they started this latest war, and we compare their
appalling casualties 240 in all of Lebanon by last night with Israels 24
dead, as if the figures are the same.
And then, most disgraceful of all, we leave the Lebanese to their
fate like a diseased people and spend our time evacuating our precious
foreigners while tut-tut ting about Israels disproportionate response to the
capture of its soldiers by Hezbollah.
Noam Chomsky in his interview to Amy Goodman recalled recent
events. Whats going onbegins with the Hamas election, back at the end
of January. Israel and the United States at once announced that they were
going to punish the people of Palestine for voting the wrong way in a free
election. And the punishment has been severe.
Its partly in Gaza, and sort of hidden in a way, but even more
extreme in the West Bank, where Olmert announced his annexation
programme, whats euphemistically called convergence and described here
often as a withdrawal, but in fact its a formalization of the program of
annexing the valuable lands, most of the resources, including water, of the
West Bank and cantonizing the rest and imprisoning it, since he also

560

announced that Israel would take over the Jordan Valley. Well, that proceeds
without extreme violence or nothing much said about it.
The latest phase began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two
Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We dont know their names. You
dont know the names of the victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably,
and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we
know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an
Israeli soldier across the border. Thats Corporal Gilad Shalit. And thats
well known; the first abduction is not; then followed the escalation of
Israeli attacks on Gaza.
The next stage was Hezbollahs abduction of two Israeli soldiers,
they say on the border. Their official reason for this is that they are aiming
for prisoner release. There are a few, nobody knows how many. Officially,
there are three Lebanese prisoners in Israel. There are allegedly a couple of
hundred people missing. Who knows where they are?
Alexander Cockburn observed that the guiding rule in this tsunami of
drivel is that the viewers should be denied the slightest access to any
historical context, or indeed to anything that happened prior to June 28,
which was when the capture of an Israeli soldier and the killing of two
others by Hamas hit the headlines, followed soon thereafter by an attack by a
unit of Hezbollahs fighters. Memory is supposed to stop in its tracks at June
28, 2006.
Lets go on a brief excursion into pre-history. Im talking about June
20, 2006 when Israeli aircraft fired at least one missile at a car in an
attempted extra judicial assassination attempt on a road between Jabalya
and Gaza City. The missile missed the car. Instead it killed three Palestinian
children and wounded 15 Back we go again to June 13, 2006. Israeli
aircraft fired missiles at a van in another attempted extra judicial
assassination. The successive barrages killed nine innocent Palestinians.
Now were really in the dark ages, reaching far, far back to June 9,
2006, when Israel shelled a beach in Beit Lahiya killing 8 civilians and
injuring 32 Thats just a brief trip down Memory Lane, and we trip over
the bodies of twenty dead and forty-seven wounded, all of them
Palestinians, most of them women and children.
Israel regrets But no! Israel doesnt regret in the least; most of the
time it doesnt even bother to pretend to regret. It says, we reserve the right
to slaughter Palestinians whenever we want. We reserve the right to
assassinate their leaders, crush their homes, steal their water, tear out their
561

olive groves, and when they try to resist we call them terrorists intent on
wrecking the peace process.
Now, Israel says it wants to wipe out Hezbollah. It wishes no harm
to the people of Lebanon, just so long as theyre not supporters of
Hezbollah, or standing anywhere in the neighbourhood of a person or a
house or a car or a truck or a road or a bus or a field, or a power station or a
port that might, in the mind of an Israeli commander or pilot, have
something to do with Hezbollah. In any of those eventualities all bets are off.
You or your wife or your mother or your baby gets fired.
Israel regrets But no! As noted above, it doesnt regret in the least.
Neither does George Bush, nor Condoleezza Rice nor John Bolton who is
the moral savage who brings shame on his country each day that he sits as
Americas ambassador (unconfirmed) at the UN and who has just told the
world that a dead Israeli civilian is worth a whole more in terms of moral
outrage than a Lebanese one.
None of them regrets. They say Hezbollah is a cancer in the body
of Lebanon. Sometimes, to kill the cancer, you end up killing the body; lots
of them. Go to the website fromisraeltoLebanon.info and take a look. Then
sign the petition on the site calling on the governments of the world to stop
this barbarity.
You can say that Israel brought Hezbollah into the world. You can
prove it too, though this too involves another frightening excursion into
history. This time we have to go far, almost unimaginably far, backto
1982.
From inside Israel, Uri Avnery noted, and indeed there was: the
Israeli army had started a war against the population of the Gaza Strip.
There, too, the pretext was provided by a guerrilla action, in which an Israeli
soldier was captured The operation in Gaza is an especially brutal one,
and that is how it looks on the worlds TV screens.
The Israeli reaction could have been expected. For years, the army
commanders had yearned for an opportunity to eliminate the missile
arsenal of Hezbollah and destroy that organization, or at least disarm it and
push it far, far from the border. They are trying to do it the only way they
know; by causing so much devastation, that the Lebanese population will
stand up and compel its government to fulfill Israels demand. Will these
aims be achieved? The idea that the weakening Lebanese government
which in any case includes Hezbollah would be able to liquidate the
organization is ridiculous.
562

The Israeli government demands that the Lebanese army be deployed

along the border. This has by now become a mantra. It reveals total
ignorance. The Shiites occupy important positions in the Lebanese army,
and there is no chance at all that it would start a fratricidal war against
them.
Abroad, another idea is taking shape: that an international force
should be deployed on the border. The Israeli government objects to this
strenuously. A real international force unlike the hapless UNFIL which has
been there for decades would hinder the Israeli army from doing whatever
it wants Moreover, if it were deployed there without the agreement of
Hezbollah, a new guerrilla war would start against it. Would such a force,
without real motivation, succeed where the mighty Israeli army was routed?
Tariq Ali wrote, in Israels actions today we can detect many of the
elements of hubris: an imperial arrogance, a distortion of reality, an
awareness of its military superiority, the self-righteousness with which it
wrecks the social infrastructure of weaker states, and a belief in its racial
superiority. The loss of many civilian lives in Gaza and Lebanon matters less
than the capture or death of a single Israeli soldier. In this, Israeli actions are
validated by the US.
The offensive against Gaza is designed to destroy Hamas for daring
to win an election. The international community stood by as Gaza
suffered collective punishment. Dozens of innocents continue to die. This
meant nothing to G-8 leaders. Nothing was done.
They want to isolate and topple the Syrian regime by securing
Lebanon as an Israeli-American protectorate on the Jordanian model. They
argue this was original design of the country. Contemporary Lebanon, it is
true, still remains in large measure the artificial creation of French
colonialism it was at the outset a coastal band of Greater Syria sliced off
from its hinterland by Paris to form a regional client dominated by a
Maronite minority.
Patrick Seale recalled the aim of Israeli aggression. The immediate
aim of Israels brutal campaign is to destroy the Lebanese resistance
movement Hezbollah and kill its leader, Shaikh Hassan Nasrallah. If the
total destruction of Hezbollah proves impossible, then the aim is to disarm it,
to drive it out of a substantial slice of southern Lebanon and replace its
presence there with that of an international force, in conjunction with the
Lebanese army, so as to form in a new security zone on Israels northern
border Beyond that, the still more ambitious aim is to redraw Lebanons
563

political map, bringing to power in Beirut a government ready to conclude a

separate peace with Israel under American auspices.
Much the same is happening on the Palestinian front where, with
US support and encouragement, Israel is seeking to destroy the Islamic
resistance movement Hamas, the victor of last Januarys democratic
elections.
By smashing the Palestinians national infrastructure in Gaza and the
West Bank, Israel intends to put in place a broken and submissive
Palestinian administration that will accept its unilateral terms. On both
fronts, Israel will refuse all negotiation until it has established a position
of overwhelming strength. This is just a glimpse of the new Middle East
which Rice observed was taking birth.
Beyond these assaults on Lebanon and the Palestinian territories,
the evident aim is to isolate and weaken Syria and Iran, the only local
powers who actively support Hezbollah and Hamas, and who still resist
America and Israeli hegemony over the region.
Hassan Tahsin added, Israel aims to terrorize Palestinians and thus
make more of them flee their homes leaving behind their lands, which
could be easily seized by Israelis. It was a policy the Zionists implemented
in Palestine with the connivance of the British colonial masters.
Israel wants to issue an indirect but clear warning to the other
Arab countries in the region that Israel can attack with impunity any
country that objects to the occupation of Palestine Israel believes that the
aggression against Lebanon would provoke Syria to go to war against Israel.
In that case Iran would also be drawn in to the conflict creating a much
awaited opportunity for the US to teach Iran a lesson for its anti-US and
anti-Israel positions.
He concluded, they dont realize that peace is something Israel
never wanted because it is not in its interest. A meaningful peace,
obviously, means Israel will have to stop stealing Palestinian territories and
shelve its plans to expand at the expense of neighbouring Arab countries.
Dr Moonis Ahmar opined that four factors tend to shape and influence
the prevailing situation in Lebanon and Gaza:
First, the coalition government of Lebanon, which appears to be antiSyria and is not in a position to disarm Hezbollah militia.

564

 Second, as far as Gaza is concerned, the activities of various militant

Palestinian groups against Israel also provide justification of Israeli
retaliation.
Third, in the prevailing Hamas-Israel and Hezbollah-Israel conflict,
Israel will have an edge over its adversaries because of its superior
military force and firepower.
Finally, the West, particularly the United States are looking the other
way and not preventing further Israeli attacks in Gaza and Lebanon
Robert Fisk talked of war crimes. For the second time in eight days,
the Israelis committed a war crime yesterday. They ordered the villagers of
Taire, near the border, to leave their homes and then as their convoy of cars
and minibuses obediently trailed northwards the Israeli air force fired a
missile into the rear minibus, killing three refugees and seriously wounding
13 other civilians.
Nine days ago, the Israeli army ordered the inhabitants of a
neighbouring village, Marwaheen, to leave their homes and then fired
rockets into one of their evacuation trucks, blasting the women and children
inside their deaths. And this is the same Israeli air force, which was praised
last week by one of Israels greatest defenders Harvard law professor Alan
Dershowitz because it takes extraordinary steps to minimize civilian
casualties.
Nasim Zehra wrote, it appears that the world for the innocent seems
no safer today than when the Nazis and the Fascists were at work.
Whatever the explanations, the outcome of deliberate Israeli and retaliatory
Hezbollah action is mayhem. Global paralysis is facilitating Lebanese and
Israeli deaths and colossal destruction of Lebanon.
Israel was intent on destroying the Hezbollah at an opportune
moment. Israels military strategists have been claiming that Hezbollahs
rocket arsenal had been growing Israel opted to use the arrest of the
soldiers as a pretext to remove what it had concluded was a threat to its
security.
They are terming it pin-point incursions; limited strike. But media
reports tell another storyIsraeli bombs and rockets battering innocent
children and women. Instead of engagement and compromise death and
destruction of the opponent has been a key element of Israeli strategy.
Palestinian and Lebanese Guerrilla leadership is routinely assassinated, also
causing death to innocent civilians qualified as collateral damage.
565

RESISTANCE
With Israel abstaining from launching any major ground offensive for
good reasons and Lebanese having no means to defend themselves against
Israeli air raids, the resistance to the aggression was obviously restricted to
the show of courage and perseverance with which they could absorb the
collective punishment. Firing of rockets on Israel was the only counteroffensive action the Hezbollah could take.
Israeli Prime Minister, Olmert, justified this punishment by referring
to the initial Hezbollah raid. I want to make it clear that the event this
morning is not a terror act but the act of a sovereign state that attacked
Israel without reason.
Hezbollahs act referred to by Olmert was not without reason. Noam
Chomsky said, the real reason, I think its generally agreed by analysts, is
that Ill read from the financial times, which happens to be right in front of
me. The timing and scale of its attack suggest it was partly intended to
reduce the pressure on Palestinians by forcing Israel to fight on two
fronts simultaneously. David Hirst who knows the area well, describes it, I
think this morning, as a display of solidarity with suffering people, the
clinching impulse.
Its very mind you very irresponsible act. It subjects Lebanese
to possible certainly to plenty of terror and possible extreme disaster.
Whether it can achieve any result, either in the secondary question of freeing
prisoners or the primary question of some form of solidarity with the people
of Gaza, I hope so, but I wouldnt rank the probabilities very high.
Robert Fisk also called Hezbollahs military action an act of
terrorism There is something perverse about all this, the slaughter and
massive destruction and the self-righteous, constant, cancerous use of the
word terrorist. No, let us not forget that the Hezbollah broke
international law, crossed the Israeli border, killed three Israeli soldiers,
captured two others and dragged them back through the border fence. It
was an act of calculated ruthlessness that should never allow Hezbollah
leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to grin so broadly at his press conference. It has
brought unparalleled tragedy to countless innocents in Lebanon
Amira Howeidy wrote, in his first speech, in which he set conditions
releasing the hostages indirect negotiations with Israel and prisoner
exchange Nasrallah refused to engage in any philosophical legal or
566

political debates on Hezbollahs right to undertake such action. No

international community, no government, no negotiations, nothing will bring
back our prisoners except this. It is our natural right. If anybody has
another way, please show us the way.
With regard to helping the Palestinians, William S Lind observed, as
Arab states stood silent and helpless before Israels assault on Hamas,
another non-state entity, Hezbollah, intervened to relieve the siege of
Gaza by opening a second front. Its initial move, a brilliantly conducted raid
that killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two for loss of one Hezbollah
fighter, showed once again that Hezbollah can take on state armed forces on
even terms
Hassan Tahsin justified Palestinians right to resist. A people under
occupation have the right to resist, and this is an internationally
recognized right though the Israeli foreign minister, for understandable
reasons, does not agree with it. According to her, the Palestinian operations
targeting Israeli towns are terrorism while Israels devastating bombings of
Palestinian and Lebanese civilian centres killing and wounding thousands of
women and children are acts of self-defence.
Uri Avnery dwelled on Hezbollahs intentions. He (Nasrallah) knew
that the Israeli army was only waiting for an opportunity to destroy them. In
spite of that, he carried out a provocation that provided the Israeli
government with a perfect pretext to attack Lebanon with full approval of
the world. Why?
Nasrallah is far from being a marionette of Iran or Syria. He
heads an authentic Lebanese movement, and calculates his own balance
sheet of pros and cons. If he had been asked by Iran and/or Syria to do
something for which there is no proof and he saw that it was contrary to
the aims of his movement, he would not have done it.
Perhaps he acted because of domestic Lebanese concerns. The
Lebanese political system was becoming more stable and it was becoming
more difficult to justify the military wing of Hezbollah. A new armed
incident could have helped.
Perhaps he (Nasrallah) got carried away, like Abd-el-Nasser and
Saddam before him. Perhaps he misjudged the force of the counter-attack he
could expect. Perhaps he really believed that under the weight of his rockets
the Israeli rear would collapse.

567

Adam Shatz also blamed Hezbollah partially. Hezbollah did not

strike in the occupied Shebba Farms, a sliver of land in the Golan Heights,
as it usually does, but inside Israel, a violation of international law the that
Israel despite its own numerous violations of Lebanese Territorial
sovereignty could invoke as a casus belli. In other words, Hezbollah
undertook an audacious act of brinkmanship that was bound, if not
designed, to escalate tensions with Israel.
Nasrallah, a shrewd and calculating man, who as a careful reader of
history, is fully aware of how Israel has responded in the past to cross-border
attacks. Indeed, when I spoke to him at his (now leveled) headquarters in
Beirut in October 2003, Nasrallahseemed in no mood to ignite a war
that would bring Israeli troops back to Lebanon.
If Nasrallah knew that Operation Truthful Promise might provide the
Israelis with an excuse to invade Lebanon, something that could and,
briefly, did make Hezbollah the target of Lebanese rage (even, evidently,
among some of his Shiite followers), what does he hope to achieve and what
is his endgame?
Nasrallahs objectives most likely lie elsewhere. Since the 2000
Israeli withdrawal, Hezbollah has faced mounting pressure, from the West
but also at home, to lay down its arms and become a purely political
organization a fate the party dreads, since it prides itself on being a
vanguard of Islamic resistance to American and Israeli ambitions in the
Middle East.
So far, Israel (with the full support of the Bush Administration)
has played right into his hands, inflicting more than 300 casualties, nearly
all of them civilians, and pounding the civilian infrastruc6ture, eliciting
sympathy for Hezbollah even among some Lebanese Christians Operation
Truthful Promise was also, in part, a service rendered to Hezbollahs patrons
in Damascus and Tehran, whether or not Bashar al-Assad and Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad were consulted before hand.
President Ahmadinejad, for his part can thank Nasrallah for
diverting attention from the controversy over Irans nuclear programme,
and for burnishing the Islamic republics reputation as a staunch defender of
Palestinian rights and, not least, of Muslim Jerusalem in a region whose
other (largely Sunni Arab) governments have compromised with the enemy.
Duraid al-Baik viewed it differently. Nasrallah has neither said he
wanted to fight the West, nor was he willing to get back his prisoners by
killing innocent civilians. From the very beginning, the party he has led
568

has been directing its guns at the true enemy of the Arabs the Israeli
army.
Al Ahram Weekly wrote, the Lebanese people are once again left
with little option but to fight and resist, without help from the Arabs.
Israel, meanwhile, is killing and dismembering in the hope of restoring lost
dignity. Israel still thinks it can sort things out with fire and bloodshed. This
war has nothing to do with the freeing of the two captured soldiers. Israel
has a plan for Lebanon and the region, and this is just one part of it.
Israel is bombing and shelling, settling accounts, and in its attempts
to eliminate the Lebanese resistance is being helped by Arab silence,
International indifference and US backing It aims to undermine any
confidence the Arabs may have gained as US schemes in Afghanistan and
Iraq came crashing down on the head of the US administration.
The battle against Lebanon is not going to be easy. The Lebanese
resistance has the resolve, support and tactical experience to pose a serious
challenge to Israel, despite the latters military superiority. The destruction
of an Israeli warship off the Lebanese coast came as a surprise. Hezbollah
has also shelled targets deep within Israel and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah,
wasnt bluffing when he said it was just the beginning.
The Daily Star claimed, the will of the Lebanese to survive and
rebuild is far stronger than the will of others to kill and destroy. They
know that Israel has launched a deadly mission to set their country back 20
years an assault that has claimed the lives of about 300 civilians in just
eight days. But in spite of that, the Lebanese are holding on to the belief that
no matter how hard this country is trampled upon, it will once again rise up
from the ashes, all the more determined to thrive.

CRUSADERS ROLE
Never since the Second World War has the US aligned itself so
totally on Israel, never has its estrangement from Arab and Muslim opinion
been greater, and never has its inability, or unwillingness, to tackle the real
problems of the region been more flagrant, wrote Patrick Seale. What are
Israels war aims in Lebanon? Why is the US backing them? And what are
their chances of success?
The West, particularly America, was widely condemned for siding
with the aggressor. Criticizing the US over siding with Israel was not
correct, because this is an established fact that Israel is no more than an
agent of the West. But, the ground reality of Jewish state created by
569

grabbing Arab lands, unfortunately, has been accepted as such; therefore, the
comments of experts and analysts have preferred calling Israel the aggressor
and America the abettor.
Hassan Tahsin was of the view that the US line in the Middle East has
always been one of the supporting terrorist practices of Israel on the
pretext that the Jewish state has the right to self-defence, a view shared
by other major powers.
Noam Chomsky in interview to Amy Goodman said that the veto of
UN resolution is standard. That goes back decades. The US has virtually
alone been blocking the possibility of diplomatic settlement, censure of
Israeli crimes and atrocities.
Dr Mehdi Hasan was of the view that the Israeli aggression was
condoned and patronized by the Bush Administration. Their rhetoric
about the right of every nation to defend itself is rather limited they do not
accept other nations right to defend themselves or to have an administration
of their own choice.
Robin Wright and Colum Lynch wrote, Rice will head to the United
Nations tonight to begin talks on the crisis and a possible stabilization force
along the border The United States is increasingly out of sync with key
allies, however, because it remains content to allow Israel to pound
Hezbollah, both to remove it as a threat and to undermine the regions
extremist movements and hard-line regimes.
The White House vehemently denied it is coordinating with Israel or
sitting around the war map saying do this, this and this, press secretary
Tony Snow said. Were not colluding, were not cooperating, were not
conspiring, were not doing any of that, he told reporters. It is not
coordinating, because everything that denied, had been coordinated well in
advance.
Nasim Zehra wrote, the world has facilitated Israels continuing
crime Led by the United States the international community has given
Israel a carte blanche to do whatever Israel considers necessary to
protect its security. This was conveyed by the mild worded G-8 summit
statement.
About Israels relentless bombing and land attacks killing hundreds
of Lebanese civilians, displacing half a million plus and reducing parts of
Lebanon to rubble, she (Rice) says it signifies the birth pangs of a new

570

Middle East, and whatever we do we have to be certain that we are pushing

forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one.
Washington erroneously believes that Israels military might will
wipe out Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic extremism; as well as help take
punitive measures against Iran and Syria, and structure Lebanese politics
according to Israels security needs; and drive fear into the Palestinian
hearts This is sheer hubris. It is precisely this kind of stubbornness that
makes Washington believe that military force, the very policy tool that has
produced a disaster in Iraq will provoke success in Lebanon and Palestine.
It turns out that Project Democracy in the Middle East too has
gone sour. Washington welcomed the first democratically elected
government, with sanctions and censures. Lebanon the other country with a
democratic government is being pulverized by Washingtons key ally.
No matter what their problems, countries like Syria and Iran, and
groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban, will have to be engaged.
They constitute part of the current reality. Washington is ignoring them
at its own peril Similarly on Palestine, there is no substitute, for a
solution. A nuclear armed highly militarized Israel, a pacified Arab elite
and a Palestinian people under constant siege can only provide the illusion
of a solution; and, also the mere illusion of peace and stability.
Fatima Bhutto wrote, House Resolution 921 was introduced into the
American Congress. Permit me to give you a sampling; where as Israel has
demonstrated its willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of peace
and has suffered completely unprovoked attacks while maintaining great
restraint, the House of Representatives reaffirms its steadfast support for
the state of Israel and recognizes Israels long standing commitment to
minimizing civilian loss and welcome Israels continued efforts to prevent
civilian causalities and thus declares its continued commitment to working
with Israel and other United States allies in combating terrorism worldwide.
Yesterday, a generic White House spokesman drew links between
Israels annihilation of Lebanon with Americas war on terror. The
spokesman said they shared dimensions of the same struggle. However
those who intoned that Israels bombing of southern Lebanon have
dimensions of a Nazi Blitzkrieg were dismissed as anti-Semites.
She added, those 30 Israelis killed by Hezbollah rockets are victims
of terrorism. The 330 Lebanese who have died are victims of self defence
and should be pleased that they were treated with Israels famous great
restraint.
571

It is not just Israel that needs to be held accountable for what

amounts to war crimes in Lebanon; The American Government needs to
stand trial, too. Israel is the perpetrator of great violence, there is no doubt
about that and no desire to take the heat off them, but America is directly
responsible for what is happening in Lebanon today by virtue of its financial
dealing with the Jewish state.
Uri Avnery in his peculiar style showed his disgust. George Bush in a
playful mood sitting on his chair in St Petersburg, with his loyal servant
Tony Blair leaning over him, and solving the problem: See? What they need
to do is get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing the shit, and its over. Thus
spoke the leader of the world, and the seven dwarfs the great of the world
say Amen.
Syria? But only a few months ago it was Bush yes, the same Bush
who induced the Lebanese to drive the Syrians out of their country. Now
he wants them to intervene in Lebanon and impose order? ... All that has
happened there since would not have happened if we had allowed the
Syrians to occupy the border from the beginning. The Syrians are cautious,
they do not act recklessly.
Ali Ashraf Khan said, the recent maneouverings, which were heard
through an off-the-cuff conversation between Bush and Blair caught
inadvertently on a microphone, are nothing but a frustrated effort of Bush
and Blair to recover their lost prestige in the so-called war against terror,
which actually is a war of attrition, designed to serve the purpose of
Israel to subdue the Muslims all over the world.
Arab News opined that, the extraordinary US sentiment, that the
Israeli bombardment is not enough, is quite another and worrying to the
extreme. For the US to not oppose, but rather condone this blatant
aggression on Lebanon is a shameful indictment on the blind, total and
unconditional US support Israel enjoys, never more than when an Arab party
is on the other side of the conflict.
Israel is being allowed by its biggest benefactor to get away,
literally with murder, during its current savagery. The House vote on
Thursday, passed by a 410-8 margin resolution staunchly supporting Israel in
Lebanon, attests to the support Israel has in the US.
And the US is talking all the time in the world. In the absence of such
little US pressure for a quick ceasefire, Israel is being granted as much
time as it can realistically be given to push relentlessly into Arab territories
before a stoppage is finally affected.
572

In the two cases, Israeli recklessness is being green-lighted by

Washington because their interests coincide. This was never about the
capture of a couple of Israeli soldiers in Lebanon and Gaza. This was all
about the intended erasure of Hezbollah and Hamas. The collateral damage
being incurred to Lebanon and PA is also intended by Israel to warn the
supporters of these groups that it does not pay to sympathize with either of
them, that to back them means a fate similar to theirs.
The News said, it seems that quietly the Israelis have been told that
they can carry on with the death and destruction that they are causing at
least for another week which in essence means that the Americans have
given them this much time to disable Hezbollah for good.
Rices solution is a non-starter. Perhaps she would do better to bring
back a new, more workable proposal, driven by actual concern. But first,
America needs to show the will to force Tel Aviv to end its attacks
immediately, rather than allowing it ten more days or a week to bomb a
sovereign country. It is not a proposed solution, but a list of US/Israeli
demands or dictates.
Shireen M Mazari Wrote, the final culmination of the farce was the
policy of collective punishment undertaken by Israel against innocent
Palestinian citizens and the Hamas elected leaders. Lest we forget, it was the
attack against innocent picnickers in Gaza that led to the capture of an Israeli
soldier and the unleashing of the Israeli military machine against the
Palestinians.
Lebanon and its citizens are being killed in a most brazen and
criminal fashion by the leading terrorist state, Israel, with full complicity of
the US. That the US actually has the gall to justify the massacre of
Lebanese citizens under the claim of Israels right to defend itself shows
only too clearly that international law, including humanitarian and other laws
of war are not seen to be relevant for Israel and the US.
The US wants Israel to continue its killing of Lebanese and
Palestinians till its desire of revenge has been fully stated. So although
there will be an eventual ceasefire, it will only come when the Israelis feel
they have had their fill of murder and mayhem and a complete abuse of all
international norms of behaviour.
Israel has already used phosphorous bombs in Southern Lebanon and
now the US is to provide smart bombs to the Israelis. Clearly Israel feels
no need to exercise any constraint whatsoever in its killings and the US is
ensuring that this murderous streak of Israel is allowed free rein as long as it
573

appears viable. And rest of the international community can only watch as
the US uses its veto in the UN Security Council to circumvent international
opinion and outrage.
Ralph Nader took on Bush frontally. You have been a weak
president, despite your strutting and barking, when it comes to doing the
right things for the American people within the Constitution and its rule of
law The time has come for you to return to Texas for a private meeting
with your father, his former national security advisor, Brent Scow croft and
his former Secretary of state, James Baker. You heed to say to them, I cant
trust my advisors anymore; there have been so many tragic blunders. What
do you advise me to do about the destruction of a friendly nation by the
worlds fifth most powerful military?
Here is what I think they should tell you: Take personal command of
an immediate rescue effort Youve said the safety of Americans is your
top priority. Prove it by using the US Air Force and the US Navy facilities
You have been so docile and permissive to Israeli demands that any modest
deviation from this posture will make your next move credible Stop acting
like an impulsive, out-of-control West Texas Sheriff and start reading,
thinking and listening for a change You cant take sides and be an honest
broker
The above leaves an impression that only Bush or US Administration
is supporting aggression perpetrated by Israel. This is incorrect. It is not like
the Islamic World where the leaders and the led think and act differently or
Islamic countries which utterly lack unity. The Crusaders of all shades
fully support the war to crush Islamic militancy.
Bill Van Auken observed that Hillary Clintons remarks at a New York
rally staged by Zionist organizations left no doubt that a vote for Clinton in
November is a vote not only to continue the US war in Iraq, but to expand
and intensify the slaughter throughout the region.
Clinton made it clear that she not only supports the ongoing
aggression that has been unleashed against the Palestinian and Lebanese
people, but is quite prepared to back its escalation into a full war against
Syria and Iran as well. We will support (Israels efforts to send a message to
Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians, to all who seek death and
domination instead of life and freedom she told the crowd.
How is the message being sent? In southern Lebanon, Israeli planes
dropped leaflets warning villagers that they should flee north for their lives.

574

When they complied, a warplane attacked a column of refugees incinerating

18 people, most of them children. Then other planes demolished the main
roads as well as all of the bridges over the Litani River, forcing many of the
refugees to abandon their vehicles and continue their exodus on foot.
What is involved is a massive act of ethnic cleansing, aimed at
driving an entire population of impoverished Shiites out of southern
Lebanon Israeli military officials have openly proclaimed that their aim is
to drive Gaza back to the stone age and in Lebanon to turn the clock back
20 years to the days of civil war.
We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing up for
American values as well as Israeli ones, the New York Democrat
proclaimed at the New York City rally. Clintons remark constitutes a libel
against the American people. The indiscriminate slaughter from the air of
innocent children with the aim of terrorizing an entire population represents
not the values of American working people, the vast majority of the
population, but rather the perverse and criminal methods of ruling elites in
both the US and Israel.
British media and some outspoken analysts have created an
impression of differences between US and UK. Jackie Ashley wrote, it
feels, on a lesser scale, like the Iraq War all over again. Labour activists are
uneasy about their governments uncritical backing for Israel and
America. Yet the government insists Hezbollah started the crisis, and that
Israel must be allowed to defend itself. If bombs were dropped on
Guildford, goes the government line, wouldnt we feel the need to hit
back. The reality is quite the contrary.
That is true for what Robin Wright said. European nations and UN
officials are eager for a cease-fire or pause to allow Lebanese civilians to
move to safer areas and investigate diplomatic avenues, as well as prevent
other Middle East hot spots from becoming inflamed, European envoys said.
The danger of allowing it to continue is that the United States is more and
more despised. Its not like the US had a good reputation within the region
to start with. With all the military might at its disposal, America was
prepared to mend such damage to its reputation.
UN has been rendered as the stooge of the Crusaders. Dr Mehdi
Hasan said, the United Nations was prompt to adopt a resolution
condemning and warning North Korea after its long-range missile testing at
the high seas. At the same time the world body completely ignored the

575

missile attacks and bombing of civilian targets in a sovereign country,

Lebanon, without provocation.

WESTERN MEDIA
Western media worked round the clock to justify Israeli aggression
and Bush Administrations unconditional support for the war. The
Washington Times wrote, the towns you have built in northern Palestine are
within the range of the brave Lebanese children. No part of Israel will be
safe. This declaration, made yesterday by the speaker of the Iranian
parliament at a pro-Hezbollah rally in Tehran (where mobs chanted death to
Israel), serves to illustrate why Israel is so determined to bring its
military campaign to a successful conclusion with the destruction of
Hezbollahs ability to target Israel from Lebanon. And it explains why
upwards of 80 percent of Israelis applaud Prime Minister Ehud Olmerts
decision to launch the offensive.
The newspaper backed all the aims of Israel. Mr Olmert launched a
military campaign: to cripple Hezbollah as a fighting force; to enable the
government of Lebanon to exercise its sovereign responsibilities by
extending the authority of the Lebanese Army to its southern border; to
create an enforceable system of disarmament, ensuring that Hezbollah and
other armed groups cannot possess rockets and missiles that could target
Israel from Lebanon; and to create a mechanism that would prevent Iran and
Syria from replacing the substantial quantities of Hezbollah weaponry that
Israel is in the process of destroying.
A day later, it warned, if Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice makes
the mistake of visiting Damascus, Mr Assad will roll out the red carpet; then
he will offer to stop the rocket and missile fire against Israel by Hezbollah
and Hamas, on Syrias terms. The result will be to restore Damascuss
influence in Lebanon and destroy the new independent, democratic
government in Beirut which has far to fear from such a deal than from
Israels cratering of its airport runways and bridges. Thats why the best
diplomatic step the Bush Administration can take toward Syria is to ignore
Mr Assad.
Another plausible-sounding diplomatic option is for the United States
to get behind a UN proposal to send a peacekeeping force to Lebanon,
after a cease-fire. But thats been tried before, too, and if the result is to
allow Hezbollah to regroup and rearm, Hezbollah will have achieved its war

576

aim: to strike a blow against Israel while preserving its status as a state
within a state.
An international force would help only if it had a mandate and the
capability to enforce Hezbollahs disarmament. That wont be possible
unless Israels military campaign greatly weakens the movement. Theres a
chance Israels offensive will succeed, but it might take weeks and it wont
be sustainable if the current rate of civilian casualties and damage
continues.
The Bush Administration does have one good diplomatic option,
though not much has been heard about it this week. That is to insist on the
passage by the UN Security Council of a resolution ordering Iran to stop
its nuclear program, including the enrichment of uranium The best
response is to shift the focus back and make clear the United States and its
allies will not be intimidated through war-by-proxy.
David Walsh observed that the US media has consistently painted the
conflict as a defensive action by the Zionist regime against provocations by
terrorists. The American public is deliberately being kept ignorant
about the history and reality of the situation in the Middle East, as part of
the combined effort by Washington and Tel Aviv to impose their brutal will
on the people of the region.
The major television networks and cable channels, through which
much of the population receives its information about world events, have
played an especially foul role in concealing the real political and social
questions This begins with the manner in which the Middle East conflict
is portrayed. The language and phrases used are carefully calibrated to
conform to the arguments of the Israeli government and its sponsors
Right-winger and xenophobe Lou Dobbs of CNN, for example, on
July 19 evening, in the course of a one-hour-programme, repeats this
thought no less than eight times: Israel tonight is stepping up its offensive
against terrorists in Gaza, Israeli troops tonight are fighting Hezbollah
terrorists in one of the biggest ground battles of this conflict, Hezbollah
terrorists tonight are firing a barrage of rockets at cities and towns in
northern Israel, and so forth.
Without fail, as well, any reference to the fighting must place the
blame for its eruption on Hamas and Hezbollah, not long-term Israeli
ambitions No hint emerges from any of the television news programmes
that underlying the massive Israeli operation might be geopolitical aims, that

577

what we see unfolding is an operation that been long in the planning and
only waiting for a pretext. Such a possibility is not even suggested.
The news on American television is nothing but propaganda. It has,
in fact, a totalitarian character. No effort is made to educate the public. The
news is delivered for the most part by ignorant individuals, unaware of
history and social reality, simply repeating lines fed to them. When there is
any question about the nature and scope of the current operation in Lebanon
and Gaza, the television news programmes simply turn to the State
Department or the Israeli government itself for clarification. For example,
they say its not an invasion, they say its part of an effort to root-out
Hezbollah bunkers, strongholds and those rockets which continue to besiege
the northern part of Israel.
Israel is not responsible for the destruction of bridges, roads,
tunnels, apartment complexes, port facilities, factories. The terrorists are
responsible. Israeli hands could not be cleaner. A parade of Zionist
government officials appears on American television: on July 19 alone,
Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres, former prime ministers Benjamin
Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, Israeli ambassador to the US, Dan Gillerman.
All the veteran Israeli leaders have blood on their hands. They
bandy about the word terrorist, but the state of Israel was formed through
explicitly terrorist means and the various political figures have personally
participated in or presided over deadly military operations against the
Palestinian, Lebanese and Jordanian populations. They are all well-trained
practitioners of the Big Lie: that tiny Israel is under siege from its barbarous
Arab neighbours.
Peres appears at least twice on US television Both interviewers are
deferential to the veteran war criminal. Peres claims to (Larry) King, Israel
didnt start the war. Israel didnt attack anybody. We gave back to
Lebanon all that land, all the water We are living for the last six years in
total peace. We didnt hurt anybody.
Peres, of course, is lying. Israeli history in relation to Lebanon is one
of provocation, violence and criminality. Before Israels establishment,
Zionist leaders envisioned a greater Israel that would include the southern
Lebanon as far as the Litani River
Netanyahu, the extreme right-winger beloved of the neo-fascists in
the Republican Party, defends the killingcivilian deaths are the fault of
the terrorists, who insist on mingling with the general population. If you
have to take out a rocket emplacement in a crowded neighbourhood, you
578

have to do it, explains Netanyahu, to which Carson audibly adds; thats

right.
The Fox News Channels John Gibson, a fanatical right-winger,
intones, Hezbollah attacked the holy city of Nazareth, where a rocket
killed two Israeli Arabs. The various news commentators are astounded to
learn that local residents blame Israel, first, for not providing bomb shelters
for the predominantly Arab population, and, second, for launching its attacks
on Gaza and Lebanon.
If the American television networks had the slightest honesty,
they would have begun their news programmes with the fact that Louise
Arbour of the UN Commission on Human Rights suggested that Israel
might be guilty of war crimes
The fighting is invariably described as fierce exchanges between
Hezbollah guerrillas and the Israelis, again, as though there were some sort
of equivalence between the Islamic movements Katyusha rockets and
mortars, and the Zionist militarys F-16 bombers, Apache helicopter
gunship, artillery, tanks and armoured personnel carriers.
Each of the networks or channels treats the story with its own
particular touch. Rupert Murdochs Fox News pulls no punches. Your
World with Neil Cavuto, an afternoon programme, are Hezbollah cells a
bigger threat than al-Qaeda? Brain Levin, terror analyst, and Warne
Simmons, a former CIA operative, unsurprisingly, answers in the
affirmative. Simmons suggests without providing a shred of evidence, that
Hezbollah is much more of a threat than al-Qaeda. Fox subsequently runs a
headline, FBI hunts for Hezbollah sleeper cells inside US.
Not to be outdone, CNN asks its viewers, to most of whom the
question has no doubt never occurred before: How concerned are you about
Hezbollah attacks in the US? The cable channels Wolf Blitzer, formerly the
Jerusalem Post correspondent in Washington, warns of fears that
Hezbollah is going to hit the US. The CBS Evening News with Bob
Ascieffer also introduces allegation with a sensational headline, Hezbollah
in the US, only later to half-debunk the story by pointing out that Hezbollah
supporters in the US have never been charged or suspected of any terrorist
attacks.
The News wrote, much of the US mainstream media, led by that
purveyor of falsehoods, Fox News, is telling viewers that what is happening
in the Middle East is that Israel is defending itself in a war of Hezbollahs
making. Obviously, logic and commonsense do not come in the picture in
579

this, since the anomaly that a country that bombs and invades another could
not possibly be defending itself is conveniently overlooked. In fact, Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud has complained that the media is not showing
Hezbollahs brutal viciousness.
The New York Times opined that what the people of Lebanon and
Israel urgently need is a ceasefire followed by the swift deployment of a
well-armed force with a mandate to aggressively keep the peace. That
must be accompanied by an international guarantee that Hezbollah will be
forced to halt its attacks on Israel permanently and disband its militia so
Lebanon can regain control of its borders and its sovereignty.
There is little sign that Hezbollah which fired 100 missiles into
Israel on Sunday has been so deeply wounded that it cant rebuild quickly.
Ms Rice needs to make clear to Israel that more civilian deaths in
Lebanon wont make Israelis safer.
The United States and its allies must start aggressively soliciting
contributors for peacekeeping force. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain
first raised the idea to Mr Bush more than a week ago, and was brushed off.
Such a force will need to be well armed and be given a robust mandate so
that Hezbollah will have little choice but to retreat.
Ms Rice has no plans, apparently, for a surprise visit to Damascus. At
a minimum she must urge European and Arab allies to make that trip. They
must deliver a united message that isolation and scorn is the price Syria
and Iran will pay for continuing to abet Hezbollah, and that Israel will not
be restrained until Hezbollah is restrained.
As eager as Arab leaders are to see Israel halt its attacks and
Hezbollah contained, that tough talk will be difficult for rulers who always
prefer to sit on the sidelines, and now have to answer to their increasingly
angry populations. That is why Ms Rice should be willing to make
compromises of her own and travel to Damascus.
The media not only supported the ongoing war but also desired its
escalation by frequently blaming Iran and Syria. Jim Lobe said, while
Israel-centred neo-conservatives have been the most aggressive in arguing
that Hezbollahs July 12 cross-border attack could only have been
carried out with Irans approval, if not encouragement, that view has been
largely accepted and echoed by the US main stream media, as well as other
key political faction, including liberal internationalists identified with
Democratic Party.

580

Indeed, almost as if to prove the point, the US Senate voted

unanimously on Tuesday to approve a resolution that not only endorsed
Israels military actions in Gaza and Lebanon without calling on it to
exercise any restraint, but also urged US President George W Bush to
impose across-the-board diplomatic and economic sanctions on Tehran
and Damascus.
In addition to its long-standing support for Hezbollah, whose political
power has, in Washingtons view, stalled last years so-called Cedar
Revolution, Iran has backed both Hamas, including the Damascus-based
military wing that last month precipitated the current round of violence
by abducting an Israeli soldier
He quoted liberal columnist Thomas Friedman: The little flowers
of democracy that were planted in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian
territories are being crushed by the boots of Syrian-backed Islamist
Militias who are desperate to keep real democracy from taking hold in this
region and Iranian-backed Islamist militias desperate to keep modernism
from taking hold. Liberalism of Friedman cannot be doubted because of his
shameless courage to blame Syria for crushing democracies while the US
was crushing three democracies in the region simultaneously.
But Iran can be blamed for other ills, as well. By allegedly
promoting instability throughout the region, as well as fears of an eventual
military confrontation with Washington, Iran can also be blamed for the rise
of oil prices, from which it is profiting handsomely, to record levels. He did
not blame America for destabilizing the region through invasions and regime
changes to create new Middle East. He, however, spared Iran for Katrina.
And its repeated rejection of US demands that it responds to the
pending proposal for a deal on its nuclear programme adds to the thesis that
Iran is engaged in its own form of asymmetric warfare against
Washington.
Graham Fuller, a former top Central Intelligence Agency and RAND
Corporation Middle East expert, noted that there has been a build up of
domestic forces that now see Iran as inexorably at the centre of the entire
regional spider web.
Jim Lobe rejected all these views by concluding that in much of the
same way that Saddam Hussein was depicted, particularly by neoconservatives, as the strategic domino whose fall would unleash a process
of democratization, de-radicalization, moderation and modernization
throughout the Middle East, so now Iran is portrayed as the Gordian
581

Knot whose cutting would not only redress many of Washingtons recent
setbacks, but also renew prospects for regional transformation in the way
that it was originally intended.

ROLE OF MUSLIMS
Whereas Muslim masses were willing to help Lebanon, in any way
they could, to meet Israeli aggression, the rulers seemed an absolutely
hapless lot. Before pointing out the apathy of the Muslim rulers, Dr
Masooda Bano said, Secretary General Kofi Annan has asked for the
violence between Lebanon and Israel to stop, thereby placing the burden of
the current destruction on both sides, rather than clearly labeling Israel as the
aggressive party. Thus the UN, instead of explicitly asking Israel to stop the
attacks, is asking the two parties to restrain. But what can Lebanon do to
restrain? It has not initiated the war; nor is it fighting back actively, so what
is this call all about?
She added, equally disturbing is the silence of the Muslim
countries on this issue. None of the Arab countries have come forward to
condemn Israeli actions openly. Some argue that regimes in many of these
countries are supported by the US so they would not say anything against
Israeli actions which are approved by the US, despite the fact that their
people think otherwise. Others argue that they themselves are afraid of being
subjected to the same aggression by Israel. But it is all the more reason to
stick together and resist Israeli aggression, as united they are stronger in
dealing with Israel than each country on its own.
Hassan Tahsin noted, even the European media, which usually
stands by Israel, has expressed its shock and revulsion at the inhumane
way in which Israel is reacting to the capture of three of its soldiers
European reading of the situation is strikingly close to reality. The
interpretation is further supported by a number of considerations.
First, the new Israeli government seeks to satisfy Israeli voters and
the Jewish hardliners by a show of strength Secondly, the US media
supports any Israeli violations and excesses with the tacit approval of the
White House, which loves to present the Hamas government as a gang of
terrorists. His views about European reading are debatable.
M Shaban Uppal from Karachi said, it appears to be a fact that
western countries along with the US are working on the well defined agenda
aiming to ensure that Muslim countries do not remain economically viable
582

and are rendered defenceless. The Lebanon crisis should serve as a lesson to
the Muslim World; neither the United Nations nor the Muslim World has
reacted to this unfortunate tragedy. Muhammad Amjad from Sialkot
wrote, it is unfortunate that the Muslim states are watching this war unfold
with no intention of assisting their Muslim brothers and sisters, so much for
the Muslim Ummah.
Muhammad Adil from Lahore said, shame on those who sit in the
Security Council and promote the US agenda against the Palestinians and
Muslim elsewhere Where is the Arab League? Where is the OIC? Why
dont they hold emergency meetings and announce support for the
Palestinians and Lebanon? Cant we stand united against Israeli aggression?
Why does OPEC not announce a halt to oil production? Ah! What Muslims
have become and what they were?
Moez Mobeen from Islamabad raised the voice on behalf of the
Muslim masses. What is infuriating and frustrating is the shameful
response of the Muslim rulers. Not one has the courage to openly oppose
the naked Israeli aggression. Not one has the guts to pressure Israel and its
allies to stop the genocide being carried out in Palestine and Lebanon. Hosni
Mubarak is dying to see the Israeli soldier released. Bashar al-Assad and
Ahmadinejad are calling for ceasefire, as if both sides were equally
responsible.
Where are the tall claims of wiping out Israel from the face of the
earth; if this isnt the time then when? The Pakistani government has
restricted itself to a mere statement of condemnation. But then what can you
expect from a government which assisted the West in attacking Afghanistan
and which is wreaking the same havoc on its own territory in Waziristan.
Muslim blood is being shed like water. Where is the OIC? Where is the Arab
League? Hasnt the time come for Muslims to unite under the banner of
Islamic caliphate? If not, then how many more lives, how many more lost
honours, how many more crippled children, how many more destroyed
homes would it take for this realization to dawn on us?
The News cried, where are the Hosni Mubaraks, the Kings
Abdullas? What have the sheikhs of Qatar, Kuwait or the UAE said in
response to what has been happening? These august personalities have not
let out even as much as a whimper as the Israeli Defence Force (a misnomer
if ever there was one) and its air force go about decimating Lebanon. Even
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has not found it proper to condemn what the
Israelis are doing or to organize the Arab countries and bring them to

583

Beiruts support. As for the Organization of Islamic Conference, the less said
the better.
Uri Avnery gave one of the reasons for Muslim rulers to turn their face
other way. The Arab regimes, which are all dependent on America, did
nothing to help. Since they are also threatened by Islamic opposition
movements, they looked at what was happening to Hamas with some
Schadenfreude. But, tens of millions of Arabs, from the Atlantic Ocean to
the Persian Gulf, saw, got excited and angry with their governments, crying
out for a leader who would bring succor to their besieged heroic brothers.
Marwan al-Kabalan pointed out another reason which related to
differences within Arab League as reflected in Saudi-Syrian clash during
the AL emergency meeting in Cairo. The Saudi foreign minister was quoted
as saying that Hezbollahs actions were unexpected, inappropriate and
irresponsible. His Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Muallem, lashed back,
asking, how can we come here to discuss the burning situation in Lebanon
while others are making statements criticizing the resistance. These
contrasting interpretations of the ongoing crisis in Lebanon were not
unexpected in the light of the many differences between the two countries.
Saudi Arabia supported the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik
Hariri, whereas Syria supported his principal rival president Emile Lahoud.
The Saudi peace initiative, announced during the Beirut Arab summit,
caused further tension between the two countries The conflict between
Syria and Saudi Arabia became open only after the assassination of Rafik
Hariri. The Saudi government suspected a Syrian role in the elimination of
Hariri and joined forces with France and the US to expel the Syrians from
Lebanon.
The two countries also took different sides in the power struggle in
the Palestinian territories. Syria supported Hamas wherein Saudi Arabia
supported Mahmoud Abbas President of the Palestinian National
Authority, calling upon the Islamic movement to recognize Israel and join
the peace process.
The two countries differed also in dealing with Iran and Iraq.
Despite that Saudi Arabia and Syria have both opposed the US invasion of
Iraq; their policies widely diverged after the collapse of the Saddam regime.
Riyadh accepted the US occupation as a fact; Syria rejected it and supported
the Iraqi resistance.
The problem is that much of the Arab World is ruled by despots
and autocratic rulers who have cosy relations with Israels benefactor and
584

biggest supporter and patron; America. And it seems that their reluctance to
come to the side of either Lebanon or Hezbollah has a lot with not wanting
to do anything that could harm their close relationship with Washington.
This is quite an irony and a very tragic one these days because the vast
majority of those who live in these countries would like for their
governments to have some balance in their ties with the US and would like
them to speak out against what is happening in Lebanon.
Aasim Sajjad Akhtar observed that in the midst of this carnage, the
actual politics of both the rulers and the ruled in the Muslim World tends to
be submerged in a deluge of propaganda, misinformation and the tendency
towards herd behaviour that necessarily prevails at such times. Yet if there is
ever to be a challenge to the brute force of American and Israeli imperialism,
serious efforts need to be made to uncover objective realities amidst the
mess.
There should be little doubt in the mind of any decent citizen of the
world including Muslim-majority countries that Israeli and American
barbarity is at least partially explained by the complicity of the existing
(and past) Muslim governments. History has proven that ruling classes of
all denominations are committed only to their own narrow interest, and the
willingness of Muslim ruling classes to allow their interests to be subsumed
by the larger strategic interests of imperialism is one of the enduring realities
of the post-WWII world.
On the other hand, Muslim working people around the world have
become convinced that they are the worlds most oppressed community. In
other words, subjugation and dis-possession would appear to be reserved for
the worlds Muslims
It should never be understated that the invading and/or occupying
power is largely responsible for perpetuating existing divisions within the
Muslim populations that it is subjugating, yet it is impossible to deny that
Muslim societies have been characterized by inequality and oppression
throughout the modern era, and that these social ills reflect that Muslims are
not an unambiguous group without internal contradictions.
The fact that Muslims believe themselves to be the victims of the
current global dispensation is not an accident. Muslim ruling classes are
quite happy for their subjects to believe this myth the reactions that
such notions give rise to have clearly given Muslim governments such as
that of General Pervez Musharraf a huge bargaining chip in the war on terror
stakes.
585

There is of course another dimension to this tale, and that has to do

with the virtual non-existence of a political force in the Muslim World
that presents an alternative to working people, an alternative that also
captures their anger and indignation, yet does not rely on jingoism and
instead calls for the unity of working people anywhereto resist
imperialism The weakness of progressive political formations in the
Muslim World is the result of decades of intrigues in which Muslim ruling
classes and the US in particular have been close partners
The era of radical anti-colonial sentiment may be behind us, but its
lessons will remain essential for the creation of a just world for a long time.
There is an urgent need for working people alienated across a whole host
of tangible differences in identity to move beyond these differences and
challenge the root causes of oppression, which are the massive inequities in
wealth and access to resources both within and across human societies.
Shireen M Mazari said, with the Israelis carrying on with the murder
and pillage of Lebanon, as Muslims we must hang our heads in shame. Our
self-imposed helplessness and fear stands in stark contrast to other
nations whose leaders are traveling to Lebanon while we have yet to see any
Muslim leader visit the besieged state.
As the Muslims continue to pay the price for Europes Nazi guilt, it is
the seeming helplessness and Pusillanimity of the Muslim World that is
most frustrating, adding to the anger of Muslim civil societies. The Arab
Worlds inability to send any leader to show solidarity with the Lebanese or
even speak out forcefully is distressing, to say the least. Is it any wonder that
Muslims are fair game for abuse and killing by the US and its allies,
especially Israel? In contrast, it is admirable to see how Hezbollah and the
Palestinians are withstanding the Israelis murderous onslaught.
Those Muslim countries, like Syria and Iran, which supported the
victims of aggression Hamas and Hezbollah were accused of
sponsoring terrorism. Even moderate analysts like Noam Chomsky pointed
their fingers at them. Theres no doubt that there are connections, probably
strong connections, between Hezbollah and Syria and Iran, but whether
those connections were instrumental in motivating these latest actions, I
dont think we have the slightest idea. You can guess anything youd like.
Its a possibility. In fact, even a probability.
If Hezbollah, wherever they have the prisoners, the soldiers, if they
decide that they cant keep them in Lebanon because of the scale of Israeli
attacks, they might send them somewhere else. Im skeptical that Syria and
586

Iran would accept them at this point, or even if they can get them there, but
they might want to.
Dilip Hero pointed out the reason: The flare-up has come at a time
when Iran is under international pressure on its nuclear issue. So mayhem
and diversion in the region suit Tehran. They also provide a fore taste of
what would follow if Israel or America were to mount their threatened
pinpoint strikes at Irans nuclear and military facilities.
William S Lind wrote, the current Iranian government is not disposed
to sit passively like Saddam and await an Israeli or American attack. It may
have given Hezbollah a green light in order to bog Israel down
logistically to the point where it would not also want war with Iran.
However, Israels response may be exactly the opposite. Olmert also
said, nothing will deter us, whatever far-reaching ramifications regarding
our relations on the northern border and in the region may be. The words in
the region referred to Syria, Iran or both.
If Israel does attack Iran, the summer of 1914 analogy may play
itself out, catastrophically for the United States. As I have warned many
times, war with Iran (Iran has publicly stated it would regard an Israeli
attack as an attack by the US also) could easily cost America the army it
now has deployed in Iraq.
Uri Avnery said all this does not explain the timing. After all,
Nasrallah could have acted a month before or a year later. There must have
been a much stronger reason to convince him to enter upon an adventure
at precisely this time.
Possibly he was asked by Iran and Syria, who had supplied him
with the missiles, to do something to divert American pressure from them.
And indeed, the sudden crisis has shifted attention away from the Iranian
nuclear effort, and it seems that Bushs attitude towards Syria has also
changed.

THE IMPACT
Jim Lobe talked of escalation of the war. Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is
likely to boost the chances of US military action against Iran, according
to a number of regional experts who see a broad consensus among the US
political elite that the ongoing hostilities are part of a broader offensive
being waged by Tehran against Washington across the region.

587

Dr Mehdi Hasan opined that the strategy of escalating the violence

will not have the same effects as it had achieved against established states,
against non-state militant groups like Hezbollah, al-Qaeda or Taliban and it
will also inflict significant pain to innocent civilians damaging reputation
at international level If this strategy fails, as it did in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Palestine, there is likely to be more bloodshed and a sense of vulnerability
resulting in demoralization of the nation using that superior military arsenal.
Israel has resorted to a military campaign against Lebanon, while
similar attacks on Syria are also on the cards. They have full diplomatic,
military and financial support from the US administration Israel must
realize that if the US hawks have failed to break down the resistance
movements in Iraq and in Afghanistan, they may fail too in eliminating a
militant opposition that has nothing to lose.
Tariq Ali wrote, Lebanons factions remained spread-eagled.
Hezbollah had not disarmed, and Syria has not fallen. Washington had taken
a pawn, but the castle had still to be captured The latest Israeli offensive is
designed to take the castle. Will it succeed? A protracted colonial war lies
ahead, since Hezbollah, like Hamas, has mass support. It cannot be written
off as a terrorist organization. The Arab World sees its forces as freedom
fighters resisting colonial occupation.
Niali Ferguson said, there are other forms that an escalation of
Middle East conflict could conceivably take. A war between states may not
be in the cards, much less a superpower conflict. What we must fear,
however, is a spate of civil wars to be precise, ethnic conflicts across
the region. This is one of the intentions of the Crusaders.
William S Lind feared destabilization of Lebanese government. In
the short run, the question may which runs out first, Hezbollahs supply of
rockets or the worlds patience with Israel bombing the helpless state of
Lebanon. If the latter continues much longer, the Lebanese government may
collapse; undoing one of Americas few recent successes in the Islamic
World.
The Nation opined that the most likely casualty of the latest case of
Israels massive retaliation will be the fragile social peace and the
democratically elected government in Lebanon. Ironically, the muchtrumpeted Cedar Revolution, the only example of the success of the Bush
doctrine that neoconservatives can still point to, could be brought down by
the Likudnik policies of Israel that the neocons so champion.

588

The paper added, it is now clear that the American and Israeli
strategy of trying to isolate Hamas and Hezbollah on the one hand, and
Syria and Iran on the other have backfired. Would the situation in Gaza
have gotten so out of hand if Israel, the United States and the European
Union had tried to work with the democratically elected Hamas government
from the outset? And would Hezbollah have felt the freedom to take the
reckless action it took the deplorable firing of rockets on Israeli civilians?
Rice has said that Syria has a special responsibility to resolve this
crisis. But the whole thrust of American policy of the last two years has
been to reduce unconditionally Syrias influence in Lebanon so as to
leave Lebanon to the Lebanese. By what logic does the Administration now
seek to hold Syria accountable for the reckless action of Hezbollah militia in
southern Lebanon?
The big beneficiaries of American policy have been the more
radical wings of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Iranians, who more and
more look like the champions of the Palestinian people. The big losers are
the so-called moderate Arab regimes, which again look helpless in the face
of what is seen as Israeli aggression, and the moderate Israelis, Palestinians
and Lebanese who hoped for some normalcy of life with the prospect of
peace, especially when the Hamas leadership appeared to be moving toward
recognition of Israel. The United States and the larger world, too, are losers,
for no one benefits from this mindless escalation of violence, particularly at
a time of growing sectarian violence in Iraq and rising oil prices.
Muqtedar Khan wrote, thanks to a lame duck president whose
credibility at home and abroad is embarrassing, the worlds only superpower,
and the natural guarantor of global order, remains like its leader, ineffective
and directionless on the global stage The US has most to lose if things
get out of hand. Its key interests in the region can be stated thus: OIL (oil,
Israel and Liberalism). They are all in jeopardy.
Iran, thanks to Americas foolhardy adventure in Iraq, is rapidly
emerging as a regional power, more capable of shaping political and
geopolitical realities in the Middle East than even the US. It is protecting
itself from Americas pressure on the nuclear issue by creating a dangerous
diversion Americas weak response and support of Israel has probably
done billions of dollars worth of damage to the public diplomacy campaign
that everyone thinks is so vital to win the war on terror.
Gideon Levy wrote, those who want to restore Israels deterrent
capabilities have not succeeded. Hezbollah and the rest of its enemies now
589

know that Israel reacts with enormous force to any provocation. An

international agreement could be achieved now, and it wont be possible
to achieve a better deal in the future.
Israels other goals return of the captured soldiers and the
elimination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah will be more difficult to
achieve if the war goes on for weeks and months. The Israeli Defence Force
is asking for two more weeks; in two weeks it will ask for another two
weeks. A decisive victory is not in the offing.
Every day increases international criticism of Israel not only in
the streets of the Arab world, but also in the west. Not only hundreds of
thousands of Lebanese but tens of thousands of westerners fleeing from
Lebanon are contributing to the depiction of Israel as a violent, crude and
destructive state.
The fact that George Bush and Tony Blair are cheering Israel might
be consolation for Ehud Olmert and the media in Israel, but it is not enough
to persuade millions of TV viewers who see the destruction and devastation,
most of which are not shown in Israel. The world sees entire neighbourhoods
destroyed, thousands of refugees fleeing in panic, and hundreds of civilians
dead and wounded, including many children. SlowlyIsraels citizens will
begin to ask why we are dying and what we are killing for.
Now Israel is hoping for the elimination of Nasrallah. It is worth
reminding ourselves of the dozens of people Israel assassinated in Lebanon
and the territories, from Sheikh Abbas Musawi to Skeikh Ahmed Yassin,
each replaced by someone new usually more talented and dangerous than
the predecessor.
Ashraf Ismail opined that there are several reasons for believing that
Israels destruction of southern Lebanon and southern Beirut will weaken its
bargaining position relatives to its adversaries, and will strengthen its
adversaries hands.
First, Israel has no clearly defined tactical or strategic objective, and
so the Israeli offensive fails the first test of military logic: there is no way
that Israels actions can improve its position relative to Hamas and
Hezbollah, much less Syria or Iran.
Second, Israel cannot eliminate Hezbollah, since Hezbollah is a
grassroots organization that represents plurality of Lebanese society. Neither
can Hamas be eliminated for the same reason. By targeting Hezbollah
however, Israel is strengthening Hezbollahs hand against the domestic

590

rivals, such as the Maronite Christians, because any open Christian

opposition makes then look like traitors and Israel collaborators.
Third, Israels failure to achieve anything at all greatly enhances
Syrias influence over Lebanon and its bargaining position relative to the
US and Israel itself. No solution in Lebanon can exclude Syria, and so now
the US and Israelis need Syrias approval, which certainly weakens both the
US and Israel.
Fourth, Bushs impotence is a clear demonstration that America has
lost a great deal of global power over the last three years. If Bush cannot
control Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Israel, then what real power does
the worlds hyper-power possess? Americas inability to influence any of
the actors that are relevant to the current crisis is yet more evidence that
Americas foreign policy is a form of global suicide.
Fifth, the age of great power warfare has been replaced by a world
in which great powers must live and compete with non-state actors who
possess considerable military capabilities. William Lind calls this
transformation: 4th generation warfare.
Sixth, we must more carefully study the reasons why Bismarckian
warfare is no longer effective. He attributed it primarily to the global
diffusion of the news outlets which give the non-state actors an equal
opportunity to win peoples trust.
As a consequence, the disenfranchised peoples of the world are
developing the ability to affect the lives of the more privileged members
of humanity, which means that anything that Israel does to the Palestinians
or Lebanese will have affects upon Israel that are more direct and more
negative than ever beforethese effects will occur in an accelerated time
scale.
As it becomes self evident that Israeli military power is no longer
as affective as it once was, this will surely accelerate the flow of Jewish
settlers out of Israel. Information regarding emigration of Jews out of Israel
is a closely guarded secret. According to Israeli official statistics outflow of
Israeli immigrants has outpaced the inflow.
The global micro-duffusion of military technology is also critical,
and so military innovation and its global duffusion will only strengthen
grassroots rebellions and allow them to more effectively resist the
instruments of Bismarckian control, as well as the depredations of the

591

military hippopotami that are the ultimate guarantors of statism and statist
regimes.
For these reasons, Israeli attempts to impose terms on Lebanon, or
to redraw political map of Lebanon, or even to impose a NATO force upon
Southern Lebanon, are not militarily feasible nor politically achievable,
and if attempted, will prove ultimately unsustainable.
As will soon be demonstrated by events on the ground, Israel will not
be able to destroy or even disarm Hezbollah. Neither will Hamas,
Hezbollah, Lebanon, or Syria permit Israel or America to dictate terms
to them. Consequently, if Israel lingers too long in Southern Lebanon, its
presence will be paid for at such a high cost, that it will be forced to
withdraw in ignominy, as it has so many times in the past.
The Observer suggested that the only path is that of pragmatism. In
other words, a compromise based not on rhetoric or ideals but on a realistic
appraisal of our capabilities and influence. The immediate task is to try to
ensure that Israel does not attempt to re-establish its occupation of southern
Lebanon or trigger a full-scale escalation of a Middle Eastern war. We need
to solve the problem, not pontificate.
By being more moderate, the British government has at least a
chance of influencing both Washington and Israel in the weeks ahead.
The US will not want to lose Britains support. Britain is one of the few
European countries along with Germany to whom Israel occasionally
listens. The governments realistic policy may not make for great rhetoric
but does allow the UK at least some small influence over events. It is better
than no influence at all. This is not an ideal world.
The US administration has no desire for pragmatism as was evident
from the views of Los Angeles Times: Still, the governments of both
George W Bush and Israels Ehud Olmert are warming to the idea of an
international force to occupy the southern strip of Lebanon, which was
effectively ceded to Hezbollah after Israel pulled out in 2000. Rice should
make this a priority. As the White House has made clear that (including to
the Saudi foreign minister on Sunday), the US and moderate Arab
governments in the region should not settle for a ceasefire that merely turns
the clock back to a few weeks.
A ceasefire is urgently needed to stop the heartbreaking bloodshed
among innocent civilians, but one reached at any cost would be counterproductive. The administration, for instance is justified in rebuffing Syria for
now. After Lebanon finally rid itself of Syrian occupiers last year, it would
592

be a huge step backward to invite Syria to the negotiating table as a

stakeholder in Lebanons future. A neighbor cant be a stakeholder but the
Crusaders can be.
The News wrote that the solution proposed by Rice, actually is
absurd; a non-starter even if ever there was one because it does not demand
anything of the aggressor in the conflict and instead asks those facing the
aggressors might to pull back 20 kames from the Lebanese border. The socalled solution also calls for a deployment of between two to three months
of an international force in south Lebanon. Once there, this force will not
however withdraw after the period but will stay on in an expanded role
where it will train the Lebanese army to allow it to become strong enough
to regain control of south Lebanon from Hezbollah.
Shireen M Mazari asked where all this is leading to. Well, not
surprisingly, Israel has now issued a statement that it may accept an
international force if it is headed by NATO. This is what many of us had
feared ever since NATO came into Afghanistan. NATO, with no Asian or
Arab members, is now moving in to areas reserved legitimately for
collective security action by the UN Security Council and UN blue berets. If
NATO takes over this role, for which it has no legal mandate, effectively
we will have the US and Europe deciding Asian security issues and
perhaps a new political map of the so-called Greater Middle East.
One of the negative fallouts of the unjust war will be the spread of
terrorism. Duraid al-Baik wrote, some Americans, such as Friedman, have
the right to believe that Nasrallah is the most foolhardy terrorist leader and
Israel must be given the right and the time to finish him off. Failing to
recognize the faulty party in the region will help nothing but flare
terrorism not only in the Middle East, but in the whole world.
Muqtedar Khan said, Muslims all across the world are watching a
nuclear power, supported, armed and funded by the US, bombard and kill
dozens of innocent civilians, destroy the economy and infrastructure of
Palestine and Lebanon, kidnap dozens of elected Palestinian leaders, bomb
their homes even when there are children present, and all the US does is
provide political cover for Israel in the UN Security Council and on the
world stage, al-Qaeda must be running out of enrolment forms.
Los Angeles Times wrote, the pounding of Lebanon may be
successfully degrading Hezbollahs capabilities, but it is also radicalizing
future terrorism recruits and making it increasingly difficult for future
Lebanese governments to cooperate with Israel. Jerusalems delicate
593

tightrope lies in its need to destroy the cancer (Hezbollah) without killing the
patient (Lebanon). The editor deliberately referred to Israel as Jerusalem,
instead of Tel Aviv.
Another negative effect, in the context of Muslim World, will be the
widening of the ruler-ruled divide as brought out by William S Lind. The
contrast with Arab states will be clear on the street, pushing the Arab and
larger Islamic worlds further away from the state.
But, the war has helped a great deal in bridging of the sectarian
divide in Muslim World. Amira Howeidy opined that a Shia has won
support of Sunni Egypt. This was based on the sentiments expressed by
common Egyptians:
A man in Mariana said that Nasrallah had said he was going to bomb
Haifa, so he did. His companion said, Nasrallah is a man of his
word, God protect him.
What the hell does Israel think its doing destroying Lebanon like
this? Nasrallah did the right thing and we should all fight Israel, thats
what we need to do, nothing else, fight to get our rights back, said a
shops accountant.
One of the messages sent to TV channel Orbit read Nasrallah is a true
man.
The cable, signed by academics, judges, journalists, artists, students,
lawyers and engineers, told Nasrallah he has supporters and family
who see that your resistance guards this nations rights, spirit and
dignity. You restored the nations confidence. It added, Israel is built
on the fear others have for it. You broke that fear.
Despite the cruelty of the confrontation, the message continued, it is
wise; rather than being an adventure it is a noble quest for selfdefence in the face of a vicious imperialist project.
These are speeches (Nasrallahs), says socialist activist Waled Khalil
that should be taught, analyzed and discussed for their eloquence and
political savvy.
Says Samara Farad, a 26-year-old MBA student: Ive never believed
in this fake peace, not once, but played along because there was
nothing we could do about it. Israel is strong because the US supports
it blindly. Now I know from Nasrallah that we can resist.

594

 Haled Tara a left-leaning Egyptian correspondent for a Western

newspaper, sums it up as follows: Hezbollah under Nasrallah is the
only Arab organization that liberated land occupied by Israel through
a brave and honorable war and not by humiliating negotiations that
led nowhere.
At last, says Khalil, the resistance is led by an admirable person,
someone you can trust, and thats the reason for Nasrallahs
credibility, unlike other Arab leaders.
Alan Mass observed that what we are seeing right now is that the
hatred toward not only Israel but the United State, and all the other
Western countries backing Israel and allying with the United States, is
reaching heights which are far beyond what existed before September 11,
2001 In other words, the United States and the state of Israel are preparing
for the rest of the world, including their own populations, nightmarish events
compared to which 9/11, Im afraid, will only be a foretaste.
People in the West, especially in the United States, have to become
aware of the hypocrisy of their government, and of this total lack of justice
and even humanitarian commiseration in dealing with the Arab populations
of the Middle East.
This effect of the war has contributed towards restoration of the
confidence of the victims to fight back. Reza Aslant wrote, over the last
few years, Hezbollah has achieved enormous political success in Lebanon by
transforming itself from an agent of foreign regimes into an agent of
domestic reform. Hezbollah made it to parliament on a political platform
focused solely on nationalistic politics. Its candidates advocate civic duty
and responsible governance over theology or the imposition of Islamic law.
The truth is that he advocated a pan-nationalist ideology. Though
created by Shiite Iran and sustained by Arab Syria, it has eschewed any panArabism, pan-Islamist or even pan-Shiite ties. Hezbollah has provided no
significant military, financial or even spiritual assistance to its Shiite
brethren in Iraq.
Hezbollah rallied in support of its ally and patron. Yet what was most
remarkable about that rally was not its pro-Syrian sentiments but its
brazen display of Lebanese nationalism. The half a million Hezbollah
supporters who flooded into Beirut in March 2005 were draped in the colors
of Lebanon, not Syria.

595

The point is that despite its terrorist tactics, Hezbollah has

successfully recast itself as a legitimate political party. It is unlikely that it
would risk that popular support by seeming to favor its foreign benefactors
to the detriment of its domestic constituents.
Smi Obeyed observed that Nasrallah has long outgrown his Shiite
audience and comes across today as a pan-Islamic and pan-Arab leader.
The Americans cannot and do not want to understand how popular
Nasrallah really is. They want this war to continue and will push Israels
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for more action if need may come in order to
crush Nasrallah.
The Hezbollah leader, who is landing missiles on Israel for the first
time in the Arab-Israeli conflict, is awaiting until Israeli public opinion
turns against Olmert. He is waiting until enough Israelis die to force
Olmert into a ceasefire. Olmert is wanting until enough Lebanese die to turn
the Lebanese against Nasrallah and blame him for this war.
Since Olmert is bombing all of Lebanon, the Lebanese are showing
great unity, claiming that this is a war on Lebanon and not a war on
Hezbollah. If it were on Hezbollah, why have missiles hit a church in
Rashayya or the Christian district of al-Metn or the Ashrafiyyiah
neighbourhood?
Just when the people were getting disappointed, Nasrallah
promised them surprises and landed missiles on an Israeli warship off the
coast of Beirut, then attacked deep in the Israeli heartland, hitting Acre,
Safad, Haifa and the Biblical city of Nazareth.
He cannot end this war If he stops fighting now, he would be
considered a traitor for having dragged himself and Lebanon into such a
war where he was defeated, Lebanon was destroyed, and its prisoners
remained in Israeli jails.
There can be 100 Khalid Meashaals, for example, but there is only
one Yasser Arafat. There is only one George Washington. There is only one
David Ben Gurion who was an Israeli nationalist par excellence. And
there is only one Hassan Nasrallah.
Rami G Khouri observed that of many dimensions of Israels current
fighting with Palestinians and Lebanese, the most significant in my view is
the continuing, long-term of evaluation of Arab public attitudes to Israel.
The three critical aspects of this are: a steady loss of fear by ordinary Arabs
in the face of Israels military superiority; a determined quest for more

596

effective means of technical and military resistance to Israels occupation

and subjugation of Palestinians and other Arabs; and a strong political
backlash against the prevailing governing elites in the Arab World who have
quietly acquiesced to Israeli-American wishes.
Protecting Israel has long been the focus of western diplomacy,
which is why it has not succeeded. For decades Israel has established buffer
zones, occupation zones, red lines, blue lines, green lines, interdiction zones,
killing fields, surrogate army zones, and every other conceivable kind of
zones between it and Arabs who fight its occupation and colonial policies
all without success. Here is why: protecting Israelis while leaving Arabs to a
fate of humiliation, occupation, degradation subservience to IsraeliAmerican dictates only guarantees that those Arabs will regroup, plan a
resistance strategy and come back to fight for their land, their humanity,
their dignity and the prospect that their children can have a normal life one
day.

CONCLUSION
Israel has been the biggest terrorist state in the world for more than
half a century and America has been the biggest sponsor of international
terrorism. This war should remove all doubts about this reality, which the
weak-hearted Muslim rulers have in their perception.
If capture of one Israeli soldier justifies destruction of Palestinians and
capture of two soldier justifies destruction of Lebanon all of them captured
in proper military operations then killing/kidnapping of thousands of
civilians by the terrorist state provide ample justification for destruction of
the Jewish state; not once, but hundred times over.
Rice held talks with Siniora in Beirut to show support for Lebanese
people. This was a cunning statement aimed at creating mistrust between
Shias and Sunnis to trigger another civil war in the region. As regards
Israels dealing with Palestinians, it is the reflection of Americans experience
of grabbing lands of the natives by eliminating them.
Their nefarious designs are not restricted to Lebanon or Palestine
only. These encompass entire Muslim World as is evident from their
addressing the Muslims as Shiites, Sunnis, Wahabbis, and dozens of ethnic
identities. But, practically they treat all of them only as Muslims. Alas!
Muslims too should consider themselves as Muslims, nothing but Muslims.

597

The show of differences between the US and the Crusaders from

Europe is meant to deceive the world, particularly Muslims, so that they
keep expecting that the Europe would end the hostilities and keep looking
towards them for resolution the crises triggered by them in full connivance
of US and on the behest of Israel.
Rice, had complained of birth pangs though in her private life she
has hardly any experience of such pangs; the pride of womans creative
ability. Instead she was trying to have ecstasy of birth pangs through
destruction of Lebanon. However, her pangs are likely to end up only in still
birth.
The UN kept waiting for the superpower to decide about the fate of
war and spell out the task to be performed by the august world body.
Meanwhile, a UN official observed that Israel bombing broke humanitarian
law. Perhaps a Christian had died in Israel air strikes.
Muslim rulers could not go beyond condemning Israeli aggression.
But, that was done even by Maliki, who flayed Lebanons destruction by
Israel while ignoring destruction of his own country by America. The
perception of Muslim rulers, about destruction perpetrated in Muslim lands,
is also grossly distorted.
In Pakistan, the government told the TV channels to stop showing
pictures accidents, blasts and other violence. Does it really relate to the
other violence or the government wants to keep the anger of the people
over Israeli atrocities under check?
26th July 2006

ALWAYS ACCUSED
Talibanization of negative trends would not be allowed, said
Musharraf. On the contrary, Taliban strongly reacted to Karzais allegations
of Pakistans involvement in the ongoing resistance. But, Special
Correspondent of the News reminded Musharraf through in a report
according to which Axis of Kabul-Washington was responsible for the
assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan. Did his report suggest Musharraf that his
safety lies in keep doing what Americans want and forget about Kashmir
while bearing in mind Americans promise to Kabul regarding Pushtunistan?
It was evident that rulers understood that as was evident from Mulla
Zaeefs story of four years of detention in Guantanamo told in his recently
598

published book. While narrating his handing over to America by Pak

officials, he bitterly quoted them saying: Your Excellency, you are no more
Excellency. You know America is superpower, none can combat it. None can
dare to be rude to the Americans. They are in need of you for investigation.
We want to hand you over to America, just to get its favour and save
Pakistan.
Bombings in Mumbai nearly buried the dead body of composite
dialogue. On the other hand, New Delhi kept supporting the rebel Baluch
sardars, despite the fact that Blairs government banned Baluchistan
Liberation Army.
Musharraf vowed that the government has shun the old trend of
cowering to blackmailing to powerful Sardars and Nawabs of Baluchistan,
as the time has reached to end the writ of these Sardars and establishing writ
of the government to protect national assets and installations.

SERVING CRUSADERS
Military action for Afghan peace against Pakistani Pushtuns and
foreigners harboured by them continued:
Police arrested 92 Afghans in various raids in Quetta on 16 th July. 45member tribal jirga was constituted to resolve the issue of violence in
North Waziristan.
On 17th July, two girls were wounded in landmine blast near
Timergara. Lashkar-e-Islami abducted five tribesmen from Bara area.
Two South Waziristan militants, Eida Khan and Dawar Khan, were
freed after over two years of detention.
A levies official was shot dead near Damadola in Bajaur Agency on
18th July. A Taliban commander was among 140 Afghans arrested in
Baluchistan.
Police continued crackdown against Taliban fighters and number of
arrested Afghans overshot two hundred by 19th July. Islamic tribal
militants in North Waziristan cautiously welcomed formation of jirga
and called for release of prisoners.
On 20th July, 32 tribesmen arrested from North Waziristan were freed.
Militants assured support to jirga. Next day, militants released 4 FC
soldiers as jirga set-up contact with militants and the government
599

freed nine more tribesmen. US Assistant Secretary, Sullivan wanted

direct links with tribal people. Afghan government agreed to free 17
Pakistanis.
On 22nd July, militants extended ceasefire in North Waziristan by 30
days. Next day, Afridi jirga fined tribal elders for letting government
into Tirah Valley. Pakistan deported 58 illegal Afghan immigrants.
Another batch of 22 tribesmen was released in North Waziristan on
24th July. Three days later, one soldier was killed and three others
wounded in roadside blast. Five soldiers and six drug smugglers were
killed in shootout near the Afghan border in Baluchistan.
On 28th July, one FC soldier was wounded in South Waziristan in
cross-border fire. Two days later, Waziristan militants reposed trust in
jirga while reiterating demand for release of tribesmen and removal of
checkpoints.
Military posts in Shakai area of South Waziristan were subjected to
mortar and rocket fire on 2nd August. Two days later, five soldiers
were wounded in an explosion near Wana. Over 1,000 Afghan
refugees left for Afghanistan.
Commenting on the developments in Waziristan, the News wrote, the
release of two tribal known to have given refuge to foreign militantsat the
request of a peace committee and a jirga of that agency, seems to be a
calculated measure meant to facilitate the formation of the grand jirga
in North Waziristan but will backfire given the history of government
concessions in the area.
Subsequently, the newspapers commented on agreement in which
the US government pledged $ 3.5 million to the government of Pakistan
to help it, as mentioned in one report, fight growing Talibanization,
especially in the settled districts of NWFP bordering FATA. The money is to
be spent on putting in place new and repairing old paramilitary check posts
along the borders of North and South Waziristan with the adjoining districts
of NWFP.
The obvious thing that comes to ones mind is that surely the
government does not think that this is the only way of fighting rising
Talibanization in the country schemes such as this can only be one small
part of a much larger and wider government approach to countering
growing extremism and militancy in the country?

600

While a beefed-up Frontier Corps, with spanking new vehicles and

all kinds of state-of-the-art electronic gadgets may well physically keep out
such elements from entering the settled districts, one needs to consider that
any form of extreme or obscurantist movement neednt necessarily rely on
the physical transportation of its adherents from one place to another.

Prejudices of the master against the obedient servant remained in

place. On 21st July, a Pakistani, Uzair Paracha was sentenced to 30 years by
a US court for agreeing to help an al-Qaeda operative to sneak into the US.
Pakistans nuclear capability, however, topped the list of prejudices. On 24 th
July, the US confirmed that Pakistan is building a powerful new reactor
near Khushab and urged Islamabad not to use the facility for military
purposes. The facility could produce enough Plutonium for 40-50 nuclear
weapons. The analysts feared that South Asia could head for new nuclear
arms race.
Two days later, Pakistan showed willingness to sign convention on
nuclear terrorism. Kasuri assured that the new nuclear reactor was safe in
our hands. Next day, the US House of Representatives voted
overwhelmingly to allow shipment of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to
India.
On 30th July, Dean Nelson drew the attention of the concerned parties:
Plutonium makes lighter, more compact and deadlier weapons than
uranium. Pakistans new capability will altar the military balance in the
region by giving it a second strike capability.
Meanwhile Rice told the House that Pakistan must provide written
security assurances as part of F-16 deal that no equipment will be
transferred and the aircrafts will not be modified for nuclear strike
capability.
The pressure against IPI gas pipeline project was ably concealed
by both Pakistan and India with disagreement on gas pricing. On 4th August,
three countries agreed to appoint consultant for fixing gas price in IPI
project.
The same day the Washington Times, with reference to remarks of
Pakistani Ambassador in Washington, mentioned four major concerns of
America. After the fall of Taliban, al-Qaeda forces crossed the border into
Pakistan and took shelter in the tribal zones, autonomous areas that have
never been under the control of the Pakistani government. In these very
religious areas, militant Islamic forces have fomented extremism, creating

601

both a hideout for al-Qaeda leadership and fertile recruiting ground for
militant extremists.
Also essential is addressing the radical Muslim schools, or
madrassas, which number around 14,000 and harbor violent militants while
providing a forum for the reputation of extreme Islamic teachings. Pakistan
will not be able to get rid of the madrassas
The July 24 report from the Institute for Science and International
Security, which stated that a new Pakistani reactor would be able to
produce enough nuclear material every year close to 50 nuclear warheads,
caused concerns that chances of proliferation would increase, as would the
risks of an arms race with India.
Pakistan certainly has progress to make when it comes to correcting
social imbalances particularly the treatment of women, which ranges
widely in the country and is still deplorable in some areas and developing
democracy.

PEACE PROCESS
India is not passionate about peace, observed Shaukat Aziz. His
remarks were an indirect announcement of the demise of composite
dialogue. The only worthwhile event of the period was that Pakistan
received modified design on Kishanganga hydropower project and Pakistani
experts were to visit the site for review.
The exuberance about CBMs also seemed dissipating, but there were
plenty of negative actions and statements to undermine the
confidence building process. Mumbai blasts formed the eye of the storm.
Pakistan was using territory for terror, said Singh on 16th July. He reiterated
the demand for crackdown on terrorists. The same day, Indian police
claimed having arrested two suspects behind Mumbai blasts.
Next day, India formally informed Pakistan about postponement of
talks. Foreign Office was saddened, not known for what? Indian police
raided Muslim slums in Mumbai. The same day, India and US discussed
nuclear deal and terrorism. G-8 leaders condemned and Bush passed a
personal message of sympathy to Singh over Mumbai bombings.
On 18th July, Muslim preachers were questioned in connection with
Mumbai blasts. Five Muslims were held in Gwahati on suspicion of terror.

602

Dont stall peace, warned Musharraf. Indian step amounts to playing into
the hands of terrorists. Singh said he was not shutting door for peace.
Two days later, Musharraf urged India not to blame Pakistan for
Mumbai blasts. I want to assure them that Pakistan and its people are with
you in this moment of grief and in fighting terrorism. On 21 st July, Indian
Police arrested three people in connection with Mumbai bombings. India
spurned an offer from Pakistan to help in investigations of blasts. India
demanded arrest of Salahuddin and Dawood Ibrahim.
On 22nd July, Indian Muslims complained of witch hunt after blasts.
Two days later, Pakistan termed Indian media reports about hot pursuit as
highly irresponsible. Indian Muslim student body is in the eye of terror
storm, observed Kamil Zaheer.
Militants threatened to attack Indian cricketers and film stars. On 3rd
August, Indian police walked into the hotel room of prominent Pakistanis
without a search warrant and inspected their belongings. Two days later,
Pakistan ordered an Indian diplomat suspected of spying to leave the country
and India reciprocated with tit-for-tat expulsion.
Other negative actions included test-firing of Trishul missiles on 23 rd
and 24th July. On 28th July, Indian Army claimed killing a Pakistani army
officer and two soldiers in IHK. Next day, India retracted the claim of killing
a Pakistani officer.
SAARC ministers failed to resolve Indo-Pak row over tariff cuts.
India had objected to Pakistani move to limit concessions for Indian goods.
Like always Pakistan took this belated action after Indian exports increased
by 300 to 400 percent.

Perpetration of terrorism against Kashmiris continued

unabated which was major hindrance to confidence building:
The Indian army was reported grabbing Kashmiri children and
sending them to India for brainwashing at a so-called NGO controlled
by the extremist Hindu outfit, Shiv Sena.
Six people, including two policemen, were killed in various incidents
on 19th July. Two days later, Indian troops killed five freedom fighters
in Pulwama and Kulgam.
Four people were killed in three incidents of violence on 23 rd July.
Next day, six persons, including two soldiers, were killed in various
incidents of violence.
603

 Three fighters were killed near border and seven persons were
wounded in blasts on 25th July.
Next day, two suspected freedom fighters were shot dead in separate
shoot outs. Nine people were wounded in a grenade attack.
Four soldiers were wounded in an attack by rebels on 29 th July. Two
days later, five Kashmiris were killed by Indian forces.
Five security personnel and four freedom fighters were killed in
various incidents of violence on 1st August.
On 3rd August, Mehbooba asked India to reduce troops in the Valley.
Two days later, Indian troops killed three more Kashmiris.
Analysts, media and even ordinary citizens flocked to talk over
Mumbai blasts. M Abd al-Hameed from Lahore said, India reacts to
terrorism attacks just like the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans
always blame their failure on the neighbours of the two countries, rather than
their own disastrous policies. So does India.
Sheikh Mazhar from Lahore wrote, instead of putting together their
heads towards the search of the actual culprits they pointed fingers at
Muslims who were alleged to have links with Pakistan. In such a manner
they lost track of the actual terrorists who may be related to other
sectarian/religious groups.
Mahatma Gandhi was killed by an RSS activist. Indira Gandhi was
killed by Sikh soldiers and Rajiv Gandhi was killed in a suicide bomb
carried out by a Tamil. Why is India pointing fingers at Pakistan without
first looking within its own borders and setting its own house in order?
Dr Sumaira Z Khan cautioned, it must be kept in mind that Indias
gestures are not those of a peace-lover. The Mumbai blasts can be a trap to
implicate Pakistan by forcibly taking Islamabad to accept terms of their
choosing. Pakistan on its part needs to keep on guard against such designs.
Rahimullah Yusufzai said, as if a damage control mission, our
government functionaries have been issuing frequent statements in the wake
of the Mumbai train bombings to deny involvement in the deadly blasts and
plead for continuation of the on-again, off-again India-Pakistan peace
talks There was sense of foreboding in Pakistan soon after the
Mumbai blasts. It was apprehended that Pakistan would be blamed and the
countrys intelligence agencies and jihadi groups implicated in the
bombings.
604

One hopes the Indians will do a better job this time and unearth the
perpetrators of the Mumbai bombings. Otherwise, we could become victims
of an unending blame-game that will lead India and Pakistan nowhere
and extinguish hopes for a lasting peace in our troubled subcontinent.
Foqia Sadiq Khan opined, moderates are largely for non-violent
means to address grievances. Simplistically speaking, moderates are for
modernity and economic development. In Pakistan they are, by and large,
for improving relations between India and Pakistan. On the other side,
extremist Hindus and secular Indians fiercely differ in their communal
politics, among other things. Clash of ideologies within nations is spreading
its tentacles.
Nasim Zehra observed that snap polls suggest that 99% of the
respondents believe the government is being soft on terrorism. The
bombings have energized Hindu nationalism and put pressure on the
prime minister to act. Some of it has to do with the Pakistan angle in
factors such as Dawood Ibrahim, Azhar Masood
Background briefings to the Indian media have been blaming
Pakistan. The media has called for action against Pakistan. A distraught
Indian public, as evidenced from their comments on various websites, is
highly critical of the governments soft policy towards Pakistan, of its
inaction in protecting Indian lives and its pampering of the minorities. The
intense anti-Pakistan sentiment assumes Pakistans culpability.
The objectives of the death merchants who wreaked havoc in
Mumbai could have been to exploit communal tensions in the area, to
demonstrate the vulnerability of the Indian state or to undermine Indias
leading business centre. A key objective could also be to undermine the
Pakistan-India peace process
The Times of India claimed that terrorist outfits like SIMI have been
using the Gujarat riots to justify their larger jihadi project. The footage of the
riots are being used by SIMI and other terror outfits to indoctrinate its
cadre. The paper claimed that although they have not been successful in
roping youth from Gujarat, Uttar Pardesh and parts of Maharashtra have
become recruiting centres for terror units.
The Indian public needs to know that the Mumbai bombing is the
outcome of a phenomenon more complex that just the neighbour across
the border and that Pakistan bashing is not the answer. What is needed is a
genuinely unified response to the menace of terrorism.

605

Imtiaz Gul wrote, all indications emanating from New Delhi within
one week of the Mumbai terror attacks made it abundantly clear that the
mistrust that has for decades bedeviled the bilateral relationship refuses
to give way to mutual confidence The articles, analyses and comments
that have flooded the Indian media landscape so far also underline the
skepticism. Pakistan-bashing is again in vogue because it sells regardless
of how this impacts a process that interests the entire world.
In an earlier article he had said, we must not let the terrorists make
the subcontinent a hostage of their evil designs. The peace process suits both
India and Pakistan and there is no alternative to negotiated settlement of
disputes and promoting regional cooperation. Both sides must now create
big vested interests in peace by allowing cross-border trade and
investment. A new paradigm of friendship and partnership can help resolve
all disputes and open vast areas of mutually beneficial cooperation.
The News opined, one thing is absolutely clear: for some reason,
India has used the tragedy to back out of its composite dialogue with
Pakistan. At least on this point, it is India which is answerable, not
Pakistan. Those in New Delhi who say that they are for peace need to stand
up to the anti-peace lobbies in the Indian government, the security
establishment and large sections of the Indian media.
Farooq Sulheria criticized targeting of innocent Muslims after the
bombings, because it leads to chain reaction. As the blood of several
hundred Indians congealed across Mumbai, the Hindu fanatics sought
every opportunity for a macabre. In Surat, the Vishva Hindu Parishad and
the Bajrang Dal went on a rampage in a mosque. In Maharashtra the police
rounded up more than a thousand Muslim youths, many of whom had
participated most energetically in the post-blast rescue operations, in Mahim
and other areas of Mumbai merely on suspicion.
While the Mumbai blasts have provided the Sangh Parvar with
an opportunity, violent actions of the Sangh Parivar help their counterpart,
the green parivar in India and her Muslim neighbours alike. For instance,
several Indian political analysts attribute the emergence of the Students
Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) to slaughters like the 2002 Gujarat riots,
when 2000 Muslims were killed.
The growth of saffron parivar in India is reciprocated by the growth
of green parivar in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The information secretary of
the Lashkar-e-Taiba, on the eve of 1999 general elections in India, testified

606

to this effect: The BJP suits us. Within a year they have made us into a
nuclear and missile power
The dastardly act of individual terrorism in Mumbai did not help the
far right merely in India or Pakistan. The opportunity was seized even by the
mother of all fundamentalisms: the USA. We will stand with India on the
war on terror, declared Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice The
corporate media in the west also spun into action immediately and begun
comparing the bombings in Mumbai to similar atrocities in Madrid and
London
The News termed the Indian talk of hot pursuit as an outlandish
option. It is highly irresponsible for a sovereign state to be talking of hot
pursuit options of striking another country to take out suspected, or should
one say imagined, enemies. It seems that the Israelis were emboldened by
the Americans and now Washingtons new close allies, the Indians, are
taking heart from what Tel Aviv is doing with Lebanon.
One can only wonder what purpose such rhetoric serves except to
strengthen the hawks on both sides of the border and further weaken the
already-stalled peace process between the two countries. As always,
Indias media is playing a very negative role in this by publishing all kinds
of accusations and stories linking Pakistan and Pakistan-based militant
outfits to the Mumbai attacks.
India should realize that any talk of pursuing suspected terrorists into
Azad Kashmir or other parts of Pakistan will not only invite a
commensurate reaction but will also be terrible for the region as a
whole. Besides, why is New Delhi so hesitant to share information on those
behind the attacks with Pakistan, especially given that Islamabad has
repeatedly said that it is willing to help out in the investigation.
Shafqat Mahmood wrote about Pakistans reaction to talk of hot
pursuit. No one can possibly condone the hostile statements from Delhi, but
keeping the larger picture in mind there has to be a measured response.
Instead of the foreign office threatening a nuclear fight to death, it should
have firmly but in diplomatic language said that no hot pursuit or any kind
of cross-border incursion will be tolerated. More often then not, a clear
statement of intent is more effective than incendiary language. As
regards the general, he need not have got into a fire and brimstone exchange
at all.
More importantly, it is not just India that blames us for continuing
to support some militant groups. Even our friends in the West think that
607

we have not entirely given up the jihadi option. In specific terms, it is said
that militants still have training camps in Azad Kashmir and other parts of
the country. Is this true?
The government should not only unequivocally deny this but give
access to independent observers so that everyone is satisfied. But, if
some camps are still operative it is against our governments stated policy. In
todays world we cannot hide anything and if the camps continue to operate
it shows us to be double dealers and liars. This is hardly conducive to peace
in the region.
Sarah Humayun identified genesis of Indian attitude. States have
been loath to admit that there is a link between their political actions
and the terrorism they suffer. Terrorist acts, on the other hand, tend to
force us to make the connection between the actions of states and attacks on
those states populations. States may have an interest in maintaining that
terrorists will strike in any case, without a strict logic of cause and effect,
because they are governed by an ideology of objectless violence; or at least
violence whose object is too vague to allow rational engagement with it.
Violence from one side is seen as preventative or remedial, and
subject to the calculus of proportion; from the other it is seen as irrational, to
which the idea of proportionality is alien because it derives from no
politically realizable aim, no electoral mandate, and no process of
accountability. It is perpetrated, in short, by what we have increasingly come
to identify as non-state actors.
That is the position on terrorism that has become familiar since
the attacks on New York on September 11, 2001. Indeed this is, broadly
speaking, the American response to terrorism by most reasonable
assessments a failure presented without reference to conspiracy theories
and ulterior motives, which would change its entire complexion.
Variations to this paradigm of response can be observed elsewhere.
So, for example, while sharing the same broad position, the UK reacted
more pragmatically to terrorist attacks last year on London commuters
The threat was treated as a matter of internal civilian security, requiring
better policing and intelligence.
The best that states can do is not to play terrorisms game. Terrorism
challenges states to show two kinds of weaknesses: the weakness of strength
the stronger the state is the harder it likes to come down on terrorism,
the tougher it talks, and the weakness of weakness do nothing and seem
helpless.
608

Kamila Hyat endorsed Indian viewpoint. To prevent the now

stumbling peace process from being knocked to the ground, Pakistans
leaders need to take a long, hard look at precisely what is happening
within the country and why incidents, that so swiftly destroy the trust
between people vital to constructing peace, such as Mumbai blasts, continue
to occur at crucial points of time.
The one essential need is to identify all such forces, those backing
them and to find ways to permanently put an end to their operations. As the
post October 8, 2005 quake scenario has shown, jihadi forces remain
intact within the country. Quite often they have been able to gain large
pockets of support and beyond their philanthropic efforts those spearheading
these groups remain totally committed to the cause of that holy war.
The groups waging jihad against India, the organizations targeting
Shia leaders or those locked in the wider, global game of terror that has
raged on for the past years, all link up in one way or the other. The attacks
they stage, whether in Karachi, or Mumbai or London, most of all inflict
terrible damage on the people of Pakistan and their desire for a better future
for themselves and their children.
It is for this principle reason that the authorities in Pakistan need to
find a way to eliminate terrorist elements, as they exist within the
country A uniform policy is needed against all those using terror as a
means to achieve their ends.
The views from across the border had to be harsh towards Pakistan for
the decades-old mindset, but saner people did not ignore the ground realities.
Yana Banerjee-Bey wrote, to have a Muslim name or even a Muslimsounding one becomes a terrible albatross round the neck during
communally troubled times. Just bearing a Muslim name can pave the way
for a crude joke or, worse, an insult such as when a journalists card
evoked the comment, We dont allow terrorists here, after last weeks blasts
in Mumbai.
The Statesman said, the waters are frightfully murky for Narendra
Modis Gujarat and his states response to the serial blasts has been
shockingly outrageous. A day after he called for legislation on the lines of
POTA to contain terrorism, the foot soldiers of the Sangh Parivar were on
the march to whip up the communal fervor. Seventy-two hours after the
bedlam and butchery in Mumbai, a mosque in Surat is ransacked and the
thriving textile market looted by activists of the Vishwa Hindu Parshad

609

Fridays violence in the textile city appears to have been winked at by the
administration.
Ashok Malik observed that India as with China was hitherto seen
as relatively insulated from the global war on terror and the larger conflict
between Islam and the United States. The bomb blasts in Mumbai indicate
a strategic shift. These have been the most virulent and destructive terrorist
attacks in India since a series of bomb blasts in March 1993, also in
Mumbai.
On more than one occasion, the prime minister has pointed out that
not one of Indias 150-million Muslims is a member of al-Qaeda. While
these assessments are largely correct, they ignore the increasing evidence
provided by intelligence agencies of the radicalization of sections of
Indias Muslims.
Obviously, the network of terror in India is far more complex and
well entrenched than the Congress-led government has been willing to
admit. A hard crackdown is going to be politically difficult for a coalition
that counts Indias Muslims most of whom, of course, abhor terrorism but
have vocal sections who are uncomfortable with Indias increasing proximity
to the United States or identification with US interests as its core voters.
Sushant Sareen opined, in the final analysis, apart from killing of a
few hundred innocent civilians the terrorists have achieved nothing from
7/11. If anything, the suspected involvement of Indian Muslims in these
attacks have only ended up damaging the interests of the very
community in the name of which these attacks were carried out
Praful Bidwai wrote, Bharatiya Janata Party has tried to communalize
the issue by accusing the government of trading national security for
votes. This implies that Muslim appeasement has encouraged terrorism.
This charge is obnoxiously communal and egregiously insulting to a
whole community.
The bombings raise a number of serious questions. A major issue is
whether New Delhi was right to consider putting the foreign-secretarylevel talks on hold unless Pakistan honoured a commitment made in 2004
that its territory would not be used for terrorist acts against India.
Some sections of Pakistani media have hinted at the involvement of
jihadi groups. This has only reinforced the assessment of some Indian
intelligence agencies that Pakistani elements were involved in the Mumbai
blasts The word assessment is important because the agencies have

610

produced no credible evidence indicting specific groups and documenting

their links. All we have is speculation. This is no different from the clues
offered in countless past cases
Yet, some degree of Pakistani encouragement for terrorist acts in
India, including the Mumbai bombings, cannot be totally and
unambiguously excluded. Pakistan has practiced the tactic of plausible
deniability for too long right from the time when it supported terrorist
groups operating in Punjab and Kashmir.
To allay suspicions, and to defend dialogue process with India in
which it has a major stake, Pakistan should adopt a more credible
approach by demonstratively taking actions against specific groups and
individuals involved in anti-India terrorism in the past
India would be ill-advised to jeopardize the peace process under
pressure from its domestic hardliners in the absence of clinching evidence of
Pakistans complicity The India-Pakistan dialogue has worked, despite its
flaws, limitations, and now-slackened pace, in both countries interest.
Mumbai holds a larger lesson for the subcontinent. Neither state can
assuredly prevent terrorist attacks. Besides actions to raise mutual
confidence levels, both India and Pakistan will have to do a great deal to
improve their ability to deal with terrorism.
Bharat Bhushan was of the view that India is facing terrorism at
two levels at Jammu and Kashmir and as part of an emerging pattern of
terrorist violence that envelopes the rest of India. The former can possibly be
controlled if the Kashmir issue heads towards resolution in the years to
come. It is the latter which is more worrying.
The Mumbai bomb blasts have also brought home several
distinguishing characteristics of this emerging pattern of terrorism that India
faces. For one, the terrorist attacks are not random. A great deal of
thinking seems to go into calibrating, planning and conducting these
attacks.
For another, up to now India had claimed that no local Muslims were
involved in terrorism This was something to be immensely proud of for
most Indians. Now for the first time there are indications of the
involvement of locals.
Although Islamabad has talked of lack of evidence linking Pakistanbased groups to terrorist activity in India, the perception in New Delhi is
that it has chosen to ignore such evidence. We have provided Pakistan
611

with evidence in the past. We gave evidence to Islamabad on the Diwali

blasts in Delhi last year. It is not as if there is a court of law which will
evaluate that evidence. What is sad is that is happening when the comfort
levels are very high between Prime Minister Singh and President
Musharraf, says a senior Indian government official.
Under these circumstances, a debate is raging in India on how to
relate with Pakistan in the wake of Mumbai bombings. Prime Minister
Manmohan Singhs utterances have become milder towards Pakistan from
the time when he went to Mumbai to getting the G-8 to commit to bring to
book the perpetrators, their organizations, sponsors and those who incite
them to terrorism. After his meeting with George Bush in St Petersburg,
Russia, he even reverted back to platitudes about the destinies of the two
countries being linked together.
Many believe that distinction Singh is forced to make between
General Pervez Musharraf and the non-state actors engaged in terrorism is
under US pressure. Merging the distinction would create problems for the
US in its so-called war against terrorism. Singh also cannot afford to up
the ante against Pakistan because he is negotiating a nuclear cooperation
deal with the US. A rise in tension in the region can scuttle it.
Tavleen Singh said, dont blame Pakistan. Next time an Indian
government wants to blame Pakistan for terrorism it should do so when it
can provide us with evidence. Or we end up helping Pakistan instead of
nailing it and, more importantly, we mislead Indians into believing that
the problem we face is entirely the creation of a ubiquitous foreign
hand.
It is not. It is indigenous. It is a jihad being fought by homegrown
terrorists and the sooner we come to terms with this the easier it will be to
fight it. Having said this I have to sadly add that there is little chance of us
winning if we continue to rely on governments in Delhi
Vidya Subrahmaniam took exception even to targeting Indian
Muslims. Of a piece with the periodic questioning of Muslim loyalty is
the contempt for communal harmony, which is seen as diluting the
emphasis on terrorism. Yet communal harmony, far from being a pseudosecular clich or a convenient diversion from flat-out state action, is a
necessary pre-condition for tackling terrorism.
In the power-keg post-blast environment in which the state is
hectored not to pull its punches, to show results, to go after the local boys,
bust their hideouts, raid their homes, and shut all madrassas, the slightest
612

indiscretion, a single wrong done to one innocent local boy, can mean
lighting the fuse.
Pakistan, however, remained the main target for reasons beyond
Mumbai bombings as was evident from the article of Sana Naqvi Bhaumik
published in the Outlook. On the walls hang pictures of three icons of the
Pakistani state the poet Allama Muhammad Iqbal, who composed Sare
jahan se achha Hindustan hamara and then migrated to Pakistan;
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who advocated the creation of Pakistan (the land of
the pure); and Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistans nuclear bomb.
Three men who symbolize what Pakistan believes it should be. What it could
be.
These lines were the preamble of her short article in which she
ridiculed the three persons held in highest esteem in Pakistan. Her hatred for
creation of Pakistan blinded her from historical facts. Allama died nine years
before the creation of Pakistan and even if he had lived by then, he did not
have to migrate as he was born in Sialkot and lived in heart of Pakistan.
One wonders why her article was chosen for republication in the News;
perhaps the editor thought that the lady was paying tributes to Allama,
Jinnah and Khan.
She added, but theres another icon in this room in the motheaten register of students enrolled in the primary school housed here about a
decade before 1947. Student No 187: Manmohan Singh, Indias prime
minister.
This is the village where Manmohan Sigh was born, and where he
lived till he was 10 years old. The village is called Gah; the school has been
renamed Manmohan Singh Primary School. Today, this cluster of mud
houses and brick structures stands testament to forces that can divide
and small gestures that unite two neighbouring countries.
Muhammad Badar Alam opined that Mumbai blasts had blasted the
composite dialogue. While Mumbai blasts have exposed the limited rapport
enjoyed by Pervez Musharraf and Manmohan Singh, they have also shown
the weaknesses of what is called people-to-people contacts. These contacts
are meant to create constituencies of peace in the two countries but they are
still a long way to go to make themselves matter in official decision making.
Otherwise, somebody somewhere could have protested quite effectively
against the war of words that India and Pakistan have very successfully
dragged each other into. While trains keep running, buses continue plying
and planes go on flying across the borders that divide India and Pakistan (in
613

yet another positive sign), a genuine normalization of their relations still

remains elusive., precisely for the lack of an institutionalized mechanism
and a strong internal factor that is, a capable lobby for peace.
Bashir Manzar wrote, the frustration on the part of the Pakistani
leadership seems too genuine. The Musharraf administration has made
certain climb-downs from Pakistans decades old stance over Kashmir. Be it
the resolutions of the United Nations or the two nation theory mantra,
Musharraf has dumped all that rhetoric and instead come up with a plethora
of new suggestions and proposals, thus annoying the hardliners in his own
country who view these new proposals as mere surrender.
It seems the irreversibility of the peace process has already been
put in a reverse mode. The days of allegations and counter-allegations are
back and while the violence continues eating up the very vitals of Kashmiri
society, India and Pakistan may revert back to a war of words that has been
plaguing the subcontinent since the day it was divided in 1947.
Praful Bidwai appreciated, President Musharrafs assurance that
Pakistan would discuss Kashmir within a framework that rules out
redrawing borders is a major gain, as is Indias willingness to negotiate
the issue. Here lies a big peace dividend, which can free both societies of the
psychological, military and political burden of their long mutual rivalry.
Amanullah Khan, Chairman JKLF, however, insisted, the formula
that meets all the requisites of a peaceful, equitable, honourable, democratic
and permanent solution of the Kashmir issue is that the divided Jammu
Kashmir State be re-united in several peaceful phases with the cooperation
and help of India, Pakistan and the political leadership of all parts of Jammu
Kashmir and made into a fully independent state with a democratic,
federal and secular system of government and friendly relations with India
and Pakistan.

HOME FRONT
Benazir welcomed the initiative of retired diplomats, civil servants,
intelligence chiefs and military officers in asking Musharraf to separate
offices of the President and COAS. The very next day, on 24 th September,
Pervaiz Elahi reiterated that Musharraf would be re-elected by current
assemblies. Four days later, the two mainstream alliances, ARD and MMA,
agreed to launch an anti-government and pro-democracy movement in and
outside the Parliament.
614

The political scenario, however, was once again dominated by

MQM. The rift with the Chief Minster over jobs and land resurfaced as
apprehended. All party members of MQM in Centre and Sindh cabinets
handed over their resignations to the president and governor. Altaf Bhai
warned the government not to react undesirably and must keep the might of
the party in view.
Prime Minister vowed not to accept a single resignation of MQM and
resolve all issues through talks. During the first meeting in Karachi, he was
informed about the reasons of resignation. Qazi termed it as political
gimmick. Altaf Bhai, however, was pleased that Musharraf Bhai has taken
the matter into his own hands.
MQM wanted replacement of chairman of NHA and director general
of Post Office with their nominees. The party wanted full control of NHA.
On 1st August, MQM stayed away from meeting to be presided by Musharraf
over Arabab Rahims statement referring to Tipu and jackal. The government
decided not to contact MQM any more, but kept open the door for dialogue
if MQM contacts.
Next day, MQM and the government patched up in a meeting between
the president and Ishratul Ibad. A reconciliation message of Altaf Bhai was
delivered to Musharraf Bhai and was accepted. The latter, however
expressed his concern over the recent behaviour of the naughty boys of the
family. Ishrat apologized to Musharraf.
Commenting on the increasing political confrontation, Ikram Sehgal
wrote, our politicians must realize the gravity of the situation; the same
should be the case for the presidency. For the sake of the country Pervez
Musharraf must accommodate the legitimate demands of the opposition
to make a more even playing field for real democracy to function. The
federal government must do more to make the politicians in and out of
power to understand the implications of the geopolitical danger and
consequences thereof. Most of our politicians are patriots, if somewhat
geopolitically nave.
The News commented on the letter written to the President by
prominent personalities. The truth is that these men (and there is one
woman in the group) have not said anything that hasnt been said and
advocated before. Perhaps what makes the contents of the letter all the
more intriguing is the timing of its release, and the fact that those who
have written it include some of the presidents personal friends and
confidants.
615

The argument taken in the letter, that it is not good for democracy
and bad for the military itself when the army chief also happens to be
the president, is a convincing one The other suggestions contained in the
letter include making the Election Commission of Pakistan truly
independent so that it can organize elections that are free from any
manipulation and provide all participating political parties with a level
playing field.
M B Naqvi observed, several mean questions arise. Didnt this gentry
know the need for transparent polls in 2001 and 2002? Why didnt they give
the same advice then; they could not have become all wise in these four
years. It would be interesting to find out when precisely it dawned on them
that the elections of 2002 were not transparently free and fair and that they
would not lead to complete and authentic democracy? Many would ask
how it is that retired civil servants and generals suddenly become
democrats and display good sense.
It is necessary to find out if the letter is a major development and
consider its context. One can briefly mention a list of developments that
have recently taken place: President Musharraf has proposed converting
Pakistan into an energy corridor for China; he envisages new linkages
between China and Pakistan, a railway virtually over the top of the world,
oil and gas pipelines and fibre optic links for improving communication. He
also envisages linking of Karakoram Highway with Gwadar.
Meanwhile, the US has been exhibiting a certain amount of
disenchantment with Musharraf and Pakistan for not doing enough in
fighting the Taliban or helping Afghanistan overcome its difficulties This
is also a time when India has frozen the composite dialogue with
Pakistan. It has adopted a tough tone vis--vis this country, talking of
punitive action, including hot pursuit, in fighting terrorism and destroying
its infrastructure.
There is also news of informal contact between Benazir Bhutto and
President Musharraf and also between the latter and Nawaz Sharif. The
buzzword in Islamabad appears to be that a certain amount of success has
been achieved in the direct talks between the PPP chief and the army
chief. Not to be ignored is the fact that the ARD and the MMA are
beginning to cooperate in an agitation to be. Many parties have signed the
Charter of Democracy. Whether or not this was a tactic, it is a major
development.

616

Mir Jamilur Rahman said, the G-18 letter and the Charter of
Democracy jointly signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have many
similarities. Both the leaders have welcomed the G-18 letter. However, there
is a marked difference in the two documents in their approach to resolving
the problems. While the Charter of Democracy sets deadlines, the G-18
emphasizes that political parties should exercise restraint and respond
positively to any offer of dialogue.
He added, as if G-18 letter was not enough, the MQMs latest
skirmish with Gen Musharraf has come as a bolt from the blue. It could
not have come at a more inopportune time. The ARD is gearing up support
for its no-confidence resolution against Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. The
MMA has given its tentative agreement.
The News wrote, Musharrafs point man Tariq Aziz is reportedly
flying to London to meet MQM chief Altaf Hussain. The president has also
told the Sindh Governor not to accept the resignations so that a way-out of
the crisis can be found. At the same time, the MQM has said that its
members of parliament will continue to sit on the treasury benches.
The reasonsinclude the government asking the party not to
have a rally on August 14 at the Minar-e-Pakistan in Lahore (the party
says that the MMA has been allowed, though, to hold its rally at the same
venue on that day) and allegations that military officials working in
ministries under the MQMs control do not listen to their ministers. At the
heart of all the resentment and anger seems to be frustration with the Sindh
chief minister, Arbab Ghulam Rahim, who the party says has repeatedly
made decisions without consolations and who continues to sit on summaries
moved by ministries in control of the MQM.
It has to be said that the timing of the resignations is intriguing
Other than the timing itself one point to note is the way that issue has
come up. The president was in Karachi for over two days and MQM
ministers met him during the course of several meetings. However, he seems
to have been caught by surprise by the decision, which the part instead chose
to announce at a press conference.
Imtiaz Alam was of the view that MQM had carefully
choreographed its drama at a time when the opposition was preparing to
move a vote of no confidence against Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, and had
not resigned from the memberships of the assemblies. In fact it had assured
the president to continue to sit on the treasury benches and support his
policies.
617

The arbitration by the president was sought It is hoped that the

MQM will get what it wanted in Sindh and at the centre since it was not
demanding the moon but just the wages it deserved for its crucial support
at both levels.
In fact the MQM got, with chief minister Arbab Rahim as junior
partner, what it has been desirous of in a province that belonged to the
majority Sindhis. The MQMs coalition experiments with both the
mainstream PPP and PLM-N had turned out to be a nightmare resulting in
successive police operations against its cadres.
The difficulties it faced in partnership with such non-mainstream
Sindhi elements as former chief minister Jam Sadiq or the current
incumbent, show that its aggressive ethnic ambitions remain unfulfilled
to keep the Sindhis in perpetual decline. It wants to extend its fiefdom to
the entire Sindh and resents any obstruction in its way or the share of it in
the coalition. In fact it wants a diarchy in which its writs prevail over the
Sindhis.
Given a precarious coalition created after splitting the PPP and the
PML-N and bribing other elements to make a hodge-podge majority at the
centre, the MQM also holds the balance in keeping the Aziz government.
But, unlike Sindh, the coalition at the centre remains rudderless and without
a substantive share in power that is being monopolized by the COASpresident. If the prime minister, despite being a de jure chief executive, does
not even remain a ceremonial head of the cabinet, how can his ministers
matter in running their ministries? By demanding a real share in power at the
centre, the MQM is in fact upsetting an otherwise lame-duck arrangement at
the federal level. It wants the ministries it goes to work as its fiefs and as a
reward for its support to a minority government.
The regime is likely to lose further credibility when such deals, as
with the MQM, will be exposed. But such cosmetic adjustments are not
going to work against a more unified opposition that is increasingly being
helped by growing dissatisfaction among the masses.
Ikram Sehgal opined that the MQM may well be posturing and
could well backtrack from its threatened exit from the government, but
the timing of the protest is of some consequence. It is the best time to
blackmail the government which is under pressure on different counts, as the
analyst himself observed that the party is being an opportunist.
Shafqat Mahmood observed that the only organized political force
that the general has been able to bring on board is the MQM. It pays
618

attention to him only to the extent that its political interests are furthered. It
is not beholden to him and it has no problem playing a long-term game.
Some day, as every one does, the general will leave. Then, the Q League will
disintegrate, the Patriots will revert to being a word describing national
fervor and other hangers-on will fade into well-deserved obscurity. At that
stage, the MQM will still be a player. It is for this reason that it is not so easy
to push around.
The MQM is playing a clever game at another level too. It knows
that it has not been able to deliver any thing substantial to its supporters after
many years in power. Actually the way we are organized and our state of
finances being what it is, no party in power can fulfill all its promises. The
party realizes this and has chosen to put the blame somewhere. If you look
closely on the statements coming from its leaders, the common refrain is that
it has not been able to do much for its supporters because of the chief
minister or the federal government or a combination of the two.
There is another interest that Musharraf has in dealing with the
MQM. Now that he is getting close to entering the political arena, he
realizes just as anyone else in this business that he needs a solid
constituency. What would be Musharrafs constituency not just in terms of
an electoral seat but in broad political terms? Some people may accuse me of
biased thinking but politics is about realities. The reality is that Musharrafs
natural constituency is the Mohajir community just as Nawaz Sharifs is
Punjab and Benazirs is Sindh. This is just a simple fact of political life.
This makes it even more difficult for Musharraf to resist the
MQM and Altaf Hussain knows that. Like any good tactician, he will take
advantage of this and the general will have to give in. My guess though is
that this will not be the end of matter. The MQM cannot go in to the next
election as a Musharraf ally because then it will have to fight on its own and
the generals record. With Karachi in the grip of vast electricity shortages
and other civic problems, the ruling partys platform will not make good
politics. The next time the MQM jumps, it will be for good.
Mir Jamilur Rahman opined that the MQM has damaged its case
badly by overplaying its hand. Its demands amounted to a negation of
parliamentary democracy, or whatever is left of it. The demand of removal
of Chief Minister Arbab Ghulam Rahim was ridiculous. A chief minister
cannot be removed on a mere demand.
MQM is a tough party but not tougher than the government. It is
not a stranger to the toughness of the government. It experienced the
619

governments toughness in 1991-92 and again in 1994. As a result of that

toughness its founder-leader Mr Altaf Hussain has been living in exile since
1991 though he continues to command unflinching loyalty from his party
including the MQM ministers and the Sindh Governor. In fact, the Governor
of Sindh, Ishratul Ibad, enjoys unique political status. Constitutionally, the
governor is appointed on the advice of the prime minister. However, Mr Ibad
was appointed governor on the demand of Altaf Hussain, a small price to
pay to keep the PPP at bay. Practically, he is full governor and half chief
minister.
The reach of the MQM is limited to mohajir voters and will remain
so unless it can build trust with other ethnic groups. The Sindhis, Punjabis
and Pathans living in Karachi somehow appear frightened of it. There is no
possibility that the MQM will ever gain majority in the Sindh legislature
MQM would do well not to overreach itself.
Insurgency in Baluchistan or perpetration of terrorism by Akbar
Bugti and couple of other sardars continued. Following incidents were
reported during the period:
Nine people were injured in a bomb blast in Barkhan on 16 th July.
Police was posted at houses of Shahid Bugti and Hamayun Marri in
Quetta. Next day, one soldier was killed in landmine blast in remote
area of Dera Bugti district.
Another group of 300 Bugti tribesmen surrendered on 19 th July. A
cache on missiles and explosives was recovered. Two BLA suspects
were arrested in Naushki.
FC seized arms and ammunition in Dera Bugti on 20 th July. Next day,
three hundred rebels surrendered in Sui.
Five persons were wounded in a blast near Kohlu on 25 th July. Next
day, principal of Cadet College was shot dead in Mastung.
On 27th July, a tribal leader was held near D G Khan on charges of
helping Akbar Bugti.
Next day, at least 21 people were wounded in a bomb blast in Quetta.
Three soldiers were killed and three wounded when their truck hit a
landmine near Kohlu on 30th July. About 830 families of Marhatta
Bugtis planned to return to Dera Bugti.

620

Shahid Shaikh reported that the Bugti and Baluchistan separatist

bubble, raised with material support from India through terrorist attacks
on state functionaries and national assets, through lawlessness, killings,
murders, and sabotage, has burst and is returning to normal in troubled
districts The operations against the sub-nationalist movementhave met
enormous success with back-to-back surrender of Ferrari commanders and
loyalists of Akbar Bugti, Marri and others said an official.
In one case, the authorities have been engaged in recovering Russian
and Indian-made weaponry of all kinds for the last ten days from one
underground armed depot of Bugti. They have dumped so much weapons
including SAM rockets and what not along with huge boxes of money that
we could not believe our eyes to see how much Bugti and his cronies and
accomplices have got from outside to damage the federation.
Although the areas adjoining Afghanistan are open to all kind of
weapons supplies, the supply in fact originates from the Indian city of
Jaisalmir through Kishan Garh and smuggled into Sindh en route to Dera
Bugti and other parts of Baluchistan.
The Indians along with Bugti and all other separatists wanted to
adopt East Timor model, though around 99% people of Baluchistan are
loyal to Pakistan and there is no chance for these people to carry out their
nefarious mission.
Enough is enough. The Bugti cat is out of the bag. They are traitors
taking outside help to harm Pakistan. He is not a Nawab but a criminal of
highest order Bugti is the saddest person with zero-level pro-Pakistan
credentials We do not know exactly where Bugti is, but we think he is
now in the hands of Marris and a hostage to their wills and whims, as he is
and his powers have been reduced to minimum and confined to a limited
area.
The separatist and liberation movements have died down and every
one is contacting us to surrender This theatre of cruelty is over and Indian
hopes have been dashed to the ground as more important surrenders
are going to take place in days to come.
Senator Sanaullah Baluch is a traitor of the highest order on the
basis of what he is doing abroad and in Pakistan He said some people
like Sanaullah Baluch attempted to declare Baluchistan as Kurdistan and he
was snubbed on the spot in front of many people. It was carrying serious
repercussions and it was properly checked. This report seemed to an

621

appropriate reply to the article earlier published in the Guardian to equate

Baluchistan with Kurdistan.
The governments pursuit for acquisition of soft image continued.
On 19th July, police arrested a suspect, linked to LJ, in connection with
Turabis murder. Six days later, police arrested three more suspects involved
in killing of Hassan Turabi and the suicide bomber was identified as a
Pakistani of Bengali origin. On 28th July, five foreign students of Jamia
Benoria were asked to leave Pakistan as their visas had expired. On 2 nd
August, the cabinet approved the bill to amend Hudood Ordinance.
There were some setbacks to rulers endeavours. On 22 nd July, Ahmad
Faraz returned award conferred on him by the government, in reaction to
what he called the denial of basic rights to the people of Pakistan and
shedding of their blood. On 24th July, two women were wounded in a blast
in Hangu. Three days later, an international press freedom group asked
Pakistan to investigate the deaths of seven Pakistani journalists as vigorously
as it did in case of Daniel Pearl.
Nosheen Saeed opined that the soft image lied in pursuit of
secularism. Its time to dig deep into our souls and take a bold stand that
might be startling for a handful of people, but will be beneficial for the
country. To clear the image of Islam and to revitalize Pakistan, there is
pressing need to separate religion from politics. We need to develop
institutional safeguards against religious extremism. Pakistanis must wake
up to the threat of extremism and exploitation of Islam.
Burhanuddin Hasan urged for a crackdown on Jihadis. Jihadi outfits
like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, though banned by the
government, are still operating under cover. Although the president has
promised to crackdown on some madrassas breeding the terrorist mindset
and to expel the foreign students studying in them, this pledge has yet to be
fulfilled. All these factors have further tarnished Pakistans image.
Ghazi Salahuddin wrote, religious extremism and social intolerance
have gained strength in recent years. This may have something to do with
global developments, the Israeli attack on Lebanon being the latest example,
but the policies of the present government have certainly made a large
contribution to the rise of religious radicalism. In addition, the
compromises that have been to protect the ruling coalition have effectively
subverted the cause of constitutional and democratic governance.

622

Asif Ali Shah from Abbottabad observed that General Musharraf,

while condemning the Mumbai train blasts, has offered all help to the
Indians in their efforts to arrest the terrorists. He pointed out, in the recent
past, high intensity bombs have exploded in Hangu, Nishtar Park in Karachi
and Bari Imam near Islamabad but the government has failed to nab the
terrorists involved in these incidents. Instead of helping the Indians, the
General should first concentrate on trying to arrest the murderers of
Pakistani citizens rather than just constituting judicial commissions and
initiating inconsequential steps.
Dr Farzana Bari talked of the proposed amendment of Hudood
ordinances. An ordinance at this juncture, when the government must take
clear position on the Hudood laws and repeal them, does not make sense. No
doubt that the step will bring some relief to the victims of Hudood laws, but
it is no solution. It appears that through this move the government wants to
make some short-term gains, augmenting its women-friendly image and reestablishing its liberal credentials. Or perhaps, it is part of a bigger
political strategy to divide the opposition on the issue.
The News wrote, the governments intention, as reported recently, to
amend the infamous Hudood ordinances in parliaments next session is most
welcome though ideally repealing them would have been best. However,
since one does not live in an ideal world, modifying these laws by legislating
on matters as important to women as minimizing the role of the police in
registration of Hudood cases and differentiating between cases of adultery
and rape is still a good step.
First, and perhaps very importantly, the police will no longer have the
authority to register an FIR in a case of zina on its own. Instead, a
complainant will be required to approach a sessions judge along with four
witnesses who (the Judge) will then decide that a case be registered only
after recording the statements of the witnesses.
Secondly, the draft bill proposes to treat the marriage of a girl under
the age of 16, with or without her consent, as rape. This is a good thing
because it will effectively outlaw child marriages and clear any doubts or
ambiguities on this account.
Another important proposed modification is to make any crime not
mentioned in the Holy Quraan or Sunnah, or for which no punishment has
been described therein, liable to taazir. This is welcome because taazir
allows a judge to have the discretion to decide the punishment of a convict
depending on mitigating circumstances and/or related factors.
623

CONCLUSION
Military operation against Pakistani Pushtun tribesmen, who support
their brothers across Durand Line, failed in curb Talibans resistance against
occupation forces. Instead, Pakistan feared resurgence of Talibanization in
and around tribal areas and initiated a reconciliatory effort by forming a
jirga.
Mumbai bombings gave India yet another pretext to severe the peace
process, but Pakistani rulers craved for the dialogue. Yes, the dialogue
should continue, because it has helped in averting many crises; onion crisis,
potato crisis, meat crisis, cement crisis, sugar crisis and so on.
Situation in Baluchistan appeared to be improving, but peace will
remain a mirage as long as the sardars sponsoring terrorism remain at large.
As regards soft image through enlightened moderation, it is nave to think
that extremism in Pakistan or Islamic World can be eradicated in the
presence of extreme extremism of their enemies.
5th August 2006

PHASE III WEEK III

Four UN observers were killed in Israeli air strike on 26 th July; Annan
termed it an apparently deliberate targeting. Pakistan also condemned deaths
of UN observers. Thirteen Israeli soldiers were reported killed in fighting in
southern Lebanon. Twenty-three Palestinians were killed in Israeli air strikes
and artillery fire, bringing the death toll to 137.
Abbas demanded an immediate ceasefire. An extraordinary summit
of OIC was summoned to meet on 3rd August. Rome summit failed to agree
on immediate ceasefire. Apparently, the agreement will come once Israel
tells the US that the job has been done.
Next day, at least 12 people were killed in Israeli air strikes in
Lebanon bringing the official death toll to 414, including 347 civilians.

624

Twenty-four Palestinians were killed in Israeli offensive in Gaza Strip.

Rockets fired by Hezbollah set ablaze an industrial warehouse in Israeli
town of Kityat Shemona.
Israeli Justice Minister correctly interpreted that the lack of consensus
at Rome as a green light to continue its attacks on Hezbollah militants.
France in accordance with the Crusaders plan hoped to put Lebanon peace
plan to UN next week. Meanwhile, Zawahiri vowed that his network would
carry out attacks against Israel and its US backers to avenge the Israeli
offensive against Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
Malaysians protested Rices visit of their country. The Pan-Malaysia
Islamic Party member said Rice was a war criminal. We should not have
invited her to Malaysia. We demand she leaves Malaysia immediately.
Indian Prime Minister also condemned Israeli offensive.
On 28th July, at least 13 Lebanese were killed in Israeli strikes. Israel
also continued its killing spree in Gaza Strip. The wife of the deceased
Canadian UN observer accused Israel of intentionally attacking and killing
her husband and his colleagues.
Selim Saheb Ettaba reported new Israeli terror tactics of telephoning
Palestinians before dropping bombs on their homes to sow panic in the Gaza
Strip. Russia declared 17 outfits as terrorist; Hizbut-Tahrir, al-Qaeda, Hamas
and Hezbollah were included. Pakistan handed over relief goods to Lebanese
Envoy in Islamabad.
Bush and Blair wanted a new UN resolution and deployment of
multinational force. Bush was sending Rice back to Middle East to negotiate
terms. He said, this is a moment of intense conflict in the Middle East. Yet
our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for broader
change in the region.
Next day, at least 14 more civilians were killed in Israeli attacks
raising the total to more than 450. Israel claimed killing 70 to 80 Hezbollah
fighters in last three days. Nasrallah vowed to strike Israel in the centre and
Israel refused to set a date for ending its terrorism.
Rice returned to Middle East to reassess the situation. She refused to
set deadline for ending Israeli offensive. She hailed as positive a Lebanese
cabinet agreement on a ceasefire plan which called for a prisoner exchange
and for the government to assert its sovereignty over Hezbollah controlled
southern Lebanon.

625

Bush said Israeli operations were part of the war on terror or the
holy war or the Crusades. He demanded disarming of the militia and halt to
flow of arms into Lebanon. Pakistan and Iran called for immediate end to
Middle East crisis.
On 30th July, 60 people were killed, including 37 children in Israeli air
strike in Qana village. Olmert expressed deep sorrow but vowed the war
would go on. Israel cautiously pushed the ground offensive in which five
Hezbollah men were killed and eight Israel soldiers were wounded. Death
toll of Lebanese rose to 750 and 33 Israeli soldiers were killed to-date. AFP
reported that zest for martyrdom was fueling Hezbollah. Hamid Mir from
Beirut reported that even Christians backed Hezbollah.
Protesters smashed into UN headquarters in Beirut chanting Death to
Israel, Death to America. Gunmen stormed UN compound in Gaza City
during a protest against Qana killings. Muslim leaders were enraged over
Qana massacre. Annan condemned the incident and said, I am deeply
dismayed that my earlier calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities were
not heeded. Pope called for mercy.
Rice called off her trip to Beirut after Lebanese government told her
that she was not welcomed. She was to leave for Washington to work for
sustainable ceasefire. Blair said fighting had to stop after a UN resolution
demanding a ceasefire is passed. Human rights activists were scheduled to
protest at a British airport where a US aircraft carrying missiles was to refuel
on its way to Israel.
Next day, rescue workers dug out 49 dead bodies from villages around
Tyre. Olmert rejected the calls for ceasefire. Israel gave 48-hour break in air
strikes to allow the civilians to vacate southern Lebanon. Shias and Sunnis
of various nationalities held a protest rally in Damascus.
On 1st August, Israeli forces tried to push offensive in southern
Lebanon and Hezbollah resisted fiercely. Arab TV networks said three
Israeli soldiers were killed, but Hezbollah claimed inflicting 35 casualties
and Israel claimed killing 300 Hezbollah fighters. Three civilians were killed
and three wounded in air strike near Sidon bringing the death toll to 750.
Olmert said, we are at the beginning of a political process that in the end
will bring a ceasefire under entirely different conditions than before. Israeli
court allowed Jews to enter al-Aqsa mosque.
Third week clearly indicated that the conflict was heading towards a
stalemate. This would result in frustration for Israel and its backers who are
used to achieving victory against host of Arab armies in matter of few days.
626

It also resulted in marked increase in criticism of the aggressors bent upon

causing aimless destruction.

AGGRESSION
It was hard for the analysts to de-link present Israeli aggression from
the past as Zionist aggression has been a continuous phenomenon since the
first half of the last century. The European crusaders had always played
significant role in this phenomenon.
Timothy Garton Ash wrote, it was that history of increasingly radical
European rejection, from the 1880s to 1940s, that produced the driving
force for political Zionism, Jewish emigration to Palestine and eventually
the creation of the state of Israel.
I dont think any European should speak or write about todays
conflict in the Middle East without displaying some consciousness of our
own historical responsibility. Im afraid that some Europeans today do so
speak and write Let me be very clear what I mean. It does not follow from
this terrible European history that Europeans must display uncritical
solidarity with whatever the current government of Israel chooses to do,
however violent or ill-advised.
On the contrary, the true friend is the one who speaks up when
youre making a mistake. It does not follow that we should sign up to the
latest dangerous simplifications about a third world war against an IranSyria-Hezbollah-Hamas terrorist alliance
It does not follow that every European who criticizes Israel is a
covert anti-Semite, as some commentators in the United States tend to imply.
And it certainly does not follow that we should be any less alert to the
sufferings of Arabs, including the Palestinian Arabs who fled or were
driven out of their homes at the founding of the state of Israel, and their
descendants who grew up in refugee camps.
The story of the Jews driven from the European homelands, and
in turn driving Palestinian Arabs from their homelands, is unique. Even
if you dont accept this argument from historical and moral responsibility,
Europes vital interests are plainly at stakes: oil, nuclear proliferation and the
potential reaction among our alienated Muslim minorities, to name three.
Praful Bidwai said, Israels anti-terrorism rhetoric is deeply
hypocritical. It was itself born in Zionist terrorism, practiced by groups

627

like the Haganah and Irgun, to which leaders such as Meacham Begin, Ariel
Sharon, and present Prime Minister Ehud Olmert belonged. The terrorists
were crucial to the establishment of Israel; as Begin put it: Blood brought
our revolt to life.
Exactly one week ago, Israeli leaders, including former Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, celebrated one of Zionisms worst attacks,
on the King David Hotel. Ninety-one people perished in the attack. Its
relevant to recall the 60 year-old episode because Israels own history of
terrorism has inured desensitized its leadership to cruelty and barbarism.
Its no longer capable of thinking of justice or proportionate use of force.
The present violence was deliberately provoked by Israel when it
recently liquidated the Palestinian Authoritys internal security chief, Abu
Jamal Samhanada. This brought on Hamas attacks with primitive homemade
Qassam rockets. Israel retaliated ferociously, even killing picnicking
civilians. In the escalating violence, Hamas militants killed two Israeli
soldiers and abducted one.
Israel has not gained security for its civilians through these
actions. They have become more, not less, vulnerable. Although Israel has
the worlds thickest density of barriers, X-ray machines, bomb detectors and
so on; Hamas militants regularly manage to kill Israelis.
He concluded by advising the government of his country to act
realistically. There has been only one muted response to these momentous
West Asian developments from the subcontinent, barring a sneaking
unhealthy sympathy for Hezbollahs Hassan Nasrallah among some groups.
It is a sign of New Delhis pusillanimity that it even refused to deplore
Israels attack on a United Nations post in Lebanon, killing four people.
The Washington Times urged Israel on for destruction of
Hezbollah. While the Israeli military is among the best in the world, it is
facing an armed organization with upwards of 1,000 hardened fighters and
15,000 reservists terrorists who have embedded themselves among
Lebanons civilian population.
This armed terror group possesses unmanned aerial vehicles as well
as 13,000 rockets and missiles, and its operations are assisted on the ground
by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Moreover, even as Israel destroys
Hezbollahs weapons, Iran and Syria are apparently replenishing Hezbollahs
arsenal by sending in supplies through the Bekka Valley in eastern Lebanon.

628

When all is said done, for Israels military offensive to be a success,

it will need to result in the destruction of Hezbollah as a fighting force
capable of menacing Israel from Lebanese territory Given the fact that no
international force actually exists at the present time, it is up to Israel to
do the job.
Humera Niazi pointed out as to what Israel was doing instead.
Confronting Hezbollah would have meant guerrilla warfare. So Israel
decided to engage in the destruction of Lebanon. The bid to dismantle
Hezbollah does not mean peace in the Middle East. This requires
negotiations that will bring peace in the region; as even the formation of a
security force in Lebanon after this war cannot guarantee stability. And it
would only create a breeding ground for more extremism. And create new
problems that could lead to more conflict.
Gulf News taunted, he (Bush) should be happy. His Israeli allies are
taking care of the root problem, which, according to his Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, should be eliminated before even thinking of calling a
ceasefire. It seems the children of Lebanon are the root of the problem
and have to be annihilated to make Israel safer The new massacre,
committed by the United States and its Israeli pawns, will haunt them for
generations to come; Shame on you, Bush, shame on you.
Arab News was quite bitter in its comments. What has happened is
nothing less than Lebanons own Holocaust. The descendents of those
who fled the European Holocaust are ironically resorting to greater savagery
than the Nazis. It is heartbreaking that an atrocity such as Qana should occur
but the fact is that it will increase the pressure on Israel, the aggressor, and
America, the abettor The US was wiling to allow Israel to continue its
decimation of Lebanon. Qana has surely changed that. But, who will
pressure them; OIC?
Washington did not want to do anything, it didnt. What it wanted
and sought was a new Middle East. The new Middle East is not about
Qana but Qana is its inevitable consequence, one so terrible that Rice
cancelled a scheduled appearance in Beirut. It has taken the destruction in
Qana indeed the three Arab countries: Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq as well as
countless Arab lives for Rices new Middle East to be born.
Los Angeles Times also criticized Israeli excesses but used the
language implicating the victims as well. The horrific Israeli air strike
that killed nearly 60 civilians in the town of Qana on Sunday ratcheted up
the outrage over the scale of the Israelis 3-week-old retaliatory attack on
629

Hezbollah, the Lebanese Islamist terrorist group. One should note the
omission of mentioning 37 children included in the civilians and also the
use of phrases retaliatory attack and Islamist terrorist group.
If Rice appeared shaken in Israel on Sunday, its because the United
States, which had implicitly granted Israel a blank check to smash Hezbollah
for a limited period of time, is held accountable for Israels actions in most
quarters.
The danger now is that Israels bombing campaign is driving much
of the aggrieved population into Hezbollahs camp. If most Lebanese
were hostages to Hezbollah at the outset of the conflict, a few more weeks of
Israeli bombardment may turn them into Hezbollah recruits.
The challenge for Rice and the UN Security Council is to craft a
ceasefire and mobilize multinational force in a manner that does not
constitute a victory for Hezbollah. It is still the case that a ceasefire at any
cost, one that does not address the need to disarm Hezbollah and bolster
the Lebanese state, would be a costly mistake.
Israel may well have to occupy the southernmost strip of Lebanon
until the arrival of a multinational force, but it cannot indefinitely
continue its air campaign. It is proving too costly, not only to its own longterm interests but to those of the United States.
Patrick Seale observed that the myth of strategic supremacy has
been broken. Mention may also be made of the important role of the
ubiquitous neocons, both inside and outside the Bush Administration, in
shaping American foreign policy in a pro-Israeli direction.
But this not seem enough to account for the unconditional alignment
of the US on Israel, for its refusal to demand an immediate ceasefire, for the
hurried dispatch to Israel of still more American weapons and for the whole
thrust of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rices diplomacy which is
directed at ensuring Israels victory and the defeat and disarmament of its
enemies, notably Hezbollah.
The explanation, I believe, lies in the severe shocks which both the
United States and Israel have suffered in the past five or six years shocks
which undermine their strategic supremacy, and which confront them with
the painful possibility of having to revise their cherished strategic
doctrines. The Israeli-US war in Lebanon may perhaps best be understood
as a desperate attempt to reverse this most unwelcome trend.

630

To these shocks must now be added Israels evident difficulty in

crushing Hezbollah, in spite of its overwhelming military strength. All
these developments point to a single conclusion: asymmetric warfare by
non-state actors has humiliated the US and Israel and eroded their deterrent
capability. Their strategic supremacy has been shown to be a myth.
Zeev Schiff, Israels well-known defence analyst, has succinctly
described Israels security dilemma, as it wrestles with the new environment.
This is what he wrote last week: Hezbollah, and what this terrorist
organization symbolizes, must be destroyed at any price. This is the only
option Israel has. We cannot afford a situation of strategic parity between
Israel and Hezbollah. If Hezbollah does not experience defeat in this war,
this will spell the end of Israels deterrence against its enemies.
This is a perfect expression of Israels mindset, shared unfortunately
by many in the US. There we have it again. For both Schiff and many like
them, Israels opponents are all terrorists Israels deterrent power must
reign supreme. Israel must be free to hit its neighbours but never to be hit
back. The US must be free to smash a major Arab state but never suffer the
consequences.
What, after all, is wrong with strategic parity? Why not a balance
of power between Israel and its neighbours and indeed between the US and
emerging powers such as China, Russia, Brazil and India, not to mention the
European Union?
Can Israels security only be achieved at the cost of the insecurity and
the periodic destruction of its neighbours? Do the Palestinians and the
Lebanese not need proper protection against Israel at least as much, if
not rather more, than it needs protection against Hamas and Hezbollah?
Mansoor Jafar focused on attacks on media considered hostile to the
aggressor. The recent attacks on Arabic television channels namely: AlJazeera, and al-Arabia, al-Manar and LBC in Lebanon (July 23) stem from
the Tel Aviv attempts to muzzle press freedom in order to suppress media
reports about growing public resistance against the Zionist forces in
Palestine and Lebanon.
These targeted attacks on media outlets are directly related to the
Global Anti-Semitism Law, enacted by George W Bush on the eve of the US
presidential elections on Oct 10, 2004. It had already been used to suppress
media houses and web portals exposing human rights violations by
occupation forces in Palestine and Iraq.

631

Curbing media freedom is self-defeating: it only exposes the lie

that the US-backed Zionist war machine attacked Hezbollah because they
wanted to release their soldiers who were taken into custody by Hezbollah
Mujahideen after a courageous border ambush.
Media freedom organizations like Palestinian Journalist Bloc (PJB)
has scathingly condemned the open incitement campaign launched by the
Hebrew media against a number of media institutions The Hebrew
media alleged that al-Jazeera and al-Manar were helping Hezbollah in
bombarding Israeli installations in northern occupied Palestine by
broadcasting pictures of those locations.
The PJB shrugged off the Israeli allegations, saying that all locations
displayed by al-Jazeera cameramen were open places and not restricted for
picturing as many of the Hebrew media and TV channels showed those
places as well.
The recent bombing of media out-lets and communication network
by Israeli army is part of intentional steps with the aim to impose total
media blackout on their inhuman atrocities in the Gaza Strip and
Lebanon as well as the damage caused by Hezbollahs missiles on Israeli
settlements in northern Palestine.
In another development the ill-famed Palestinian Authoritys
preventive security apparatus has also ordered the Palestine TV, which
is under the direct control of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, not to
broadcast a documented film portraying the IDF savages in the district in
Khan Younis The programme is a film documenting the IDF troops
violations and savage measures against the Palestinian people when they
are militarily occupying the Gaza Strip.
The curb on the press is not confined to Palestine and Lebanon but,
as its title of Global Anti-Semitism Law suggests, it has stretched its wings
to other parts of Middle East as well such as Egypt. The strong support for
the US plans in the region depicted in the person of President Hosni
Mubarak fully endorsed the Bush statement that criticism of the state of
Israel is a form of anti-Semitism.
The irony of this is that an American citizen can criticize his
president but if some media outlet quotes that person in Egypt he can go to
prison. This specific article is explicitly aimed at protecting the US and
Israeli heads of state so that no one can describe them war criminals, or
Nazis, which they are. When so many Hosni Mubaraks or their likes are
sitting in OIC, how can the OIC call a spade a spade?
632

War in Lebanon has once again become breaking news on television

screens across the world, but a growing body of distorted reporting is
being disseminated just as rapidly as the country is being destroyed In
recent days, many American news programmes have demonstrated an
exceptionally weak knowledge of Lebanese politics, skewed further by a
lack of access to areas that have been attacked in the country and their
victims.
The Arab satellite TV channels and free media outlets are bombed
in pursuance of the Global Anti-Semitism Law because they are
exposing the silence of the world or the international twisting of facts be
mainstream western media outlets whose primary aim seems to be to
mislead the American public specially and the world in general.
The comments on the aggressor are concluded by reproducing extracts
from two articles written by a rational man from Israel; Uri Avnery. In first
article he wrote, the killing of a man is a national aim, almost the main aim
of the war. This is, perhaps, the first war in history waged by a state in
order to kill one person. Until now, only the mafia thought along those
lines. Even the British in World War II did not proclaim that their aim was to
kill Hitler.
But our ministers have officially decided that that is the aim. There is
not much novelty in that: successive Israeli governments have adopted a
policy of killing the leaders of opposing groups. Our army has killed, among
others, Hezbollah leader Abbas Mussawi And the results? The place of
Mussawi was filled by Nasrallah, who is far more able. Sheikh Yassin was
succeeded by far more radical leaders. Instead of Arafat we got Hamas.
True, we are a democracy. The army is completely subject to the
civilian establishment. According to the law, the cabinet is the supreme
commander of the army But in practice, today it is the top brass who
decide all political and military matters.
Ehud Olmert presents himself as the hen to Churchill (blood, sweat,
and tears). Thats quite pathetic enough. Then Amir Peretz puffs up his
chest and shoots threats in all directions, and thats even more pathetic, if
thats possible. He resembles nothing so much as a fly standing on the ear
of an ox and proclaiming: we are ploughing.
The Chief-of-Staff announced last week with satisfaction: The army
enjoys the full backing of the government! That is also an interesting
formulation. It implies that the army decides what to do, and the
government provides backing. And thats how it is, of course.
633

Now it is not a secret anymore: this war has been planned for a
long time. The military correspondents proudly reported this week that the
army has been exercising for this war in all its details for several years. Only
a month ago, there was a large war game to rehearse the entrance of land
forces into south Lebanon
The other side, too, has been preparing this war for years. Not only
did they bill caches of thousands of missiles, but they have also prepared an
elaborate system of Vietnam-style bunkers, tunnels and caves. Our soldiers
are now encountering this system and paying the high price; as always our
army has treated the Arabs with disdain and discounted their military
capabilities.
That is one of the problems of the military mentality. Talleyrand was
not wrong when he said that war is much too serious a thing to be left to
military men. The mentality of the generals, resulting from their education
and profession, is by nature force-oriented, simplistic, one-dimensional, not
to say primitive. It is based on the belief that all problems can be solved by
force, and if that does not work then by more force.
That is well illustrated by the planning and execution of the current
war. This was based on the assumption that if we cause terrible suffering to
the population, they will rise up and demand the removal of Hezbollah. A
minimal understanding of mass psychology would suggest the opposite. The
killing of hundreds of Lebanese civilians, belonging to all the ethnoreligious communities, the turning of the lives of others into hell, and the
destruction of the life-supporting infrastructure of Lebanese society will
arouse a groundswell of fury and hatred against Israel, and not against
the heroes, as they see them, who sacrifice their lives in their defence.
The result will be strengthening of Hezbollah, not only today, but
for years to come. Perhaps that will be the main outcome of the war, more
important than all the military achievements, if any and not only in Lebanon,
but throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
Faced with the horrors that are shown on all television and many
computer screens, world opinion is also changing There is a macabre
photo: jolly Israeli children writing greetings on the artillery shells that are
about to be fired. Then there appears a message: Thanks to the children of
Israel for this nice gift; thanks to the world that does nothing; signed the
children of Lebanon and Palestine.
Years of the occupation regime in the Palestinian territories have
caused a terrible callousness as far as human lives are concerned. The killing
634

of ten to twenty Palestinians every day, including women and children, as

happens now in Gaza, does not agitate anyone. Or doesnt even make the
headlines
Now this numbness is revealing itself in Lebanon. Air Force
officers, calm and comfortable, sit in front of the cameras and speak about
bundles of targets, as if they were talking about a technical problem, and
not about living human beings The word that is most popular with the
generals at this time is pulverize we pulverize, they are being pulverized,
neighbourhoods are pulverized, buildings are pulverized, people are
pulverized.
Even the launching of rockets at our towns and villages does not
justify this ignoring of moral considerations in fighting the war. There are
other ways of responding to the Hezbollah provocation, without turning
Lebanon into rubble. The moral numbness will be transformed into grievous
political damage, both immediate and long term. Only a fool or worse
ignores moral values in the end, they always take revenge.
In his second article during the week, he added, the government is
carried away by the flood that they themselves have let lose. That is what
happened this week, following the battle of Bint-Jbeil, which the Arabs have
already started to call proudly Nasrallagrad. All over Israel the cry goes up:
Get into it! Quicker! Further! Deeper!
A day after the bloody battle, the cabinet decided on a massive
mobilization of the reserves. What for? The ministers do not know. But it
does not depend on them anymore, or on the generals. The political and
military leadership is tossed about on the waves of war like a boat
without a rudder.
As has been said before: it is much easier to start a war than to finish
one. The cabinet believes that it controls the war, but in reality it is the
war that controls them. They have mounted a tiger, and cant be sure of
getting off without being torn to pieces. War has its own rules. Unexpected
things happen and dictate the next move. And the next moves tend to be in
one direction: escalation.
They decided 17 days ago in haste and light heartedly, without
serious debate, without examining other options, without calculating the
risks to attack Hezbollah. For politicians who do not know what war is, it
was an irresistible temptation: there was a clear provocation by Hezbollah,
international support was assured, what a wonderful opportunity! They
would do what even Sharon did not dare.
635

They had no time to think seriously about the war aim. Now they
resemble archers who shoot their arrows at a blank sheet and then draw the
rings around the arrow. The aims change daily: to destroy Hezbollah, to
disarm them, to drive them out of South Lebanon, and perhaps just to
weaken them. To kill Hassan Nasrallah. To bring the captured soldiers home.
To extend the sovereignty of the Lebanese government over all of
Lebanon
The more the nice little war continues, the clearer it becomes that
these changing aims are not realistic. The Lebanese ruling group does not
represent anybody but small, rich and corrupt elite. The Lebanese army
cannot and will not fight Hezbollah. The new security zone will be exposed
to guerrilla attacks and the international force will not enter the area without
the agreement of Hezbollah.
The term guerrilla (small war) was coined in Spain, during the
occupation of the country by Napoleon Even assuming that Dan Halutz
and Udi Adam are greater commanders than Napoleon and his marshals,
they will not succeed where those failed.
When Napoleon did not know what to do next, he invaded Russia. If
we dont stop the operation, it will lead us to war with Syria From the
first day of George Bushs presidency, the neo-cons have been calling for
elimination of Syria.

RESISTANCE
Mohammad Akef Jamal in his review raised some points. What
surprises most is the official Lebanese policy which does not have any
animosity towards Israel. In fact, the Lebanese government is confused
and does not know exactly what to do.
Tel Aviv believes in a quick victory within the shortest possible
time by mobilizing its military, civilian and political forces, and superior air
force and weapons, supplied mostly by the US, and intelligence network
Israels geopolitical location does not allow for a long war and hence it
prefers pre-emptive wars, so as not to give its enemy a chance to harm its
vulnerable cities.
Last, but not the least is the history of more than 50-year-old ArabIsraeli conflict has proved the inability of Arab regimes to impose their
equation on the balance of power in the region.
Lebanese government is not an active party to resist Israeli aggression
for two reasons; one, it is a pro-US entity and two; it lacks the capability and
636

will to do so. Nevertheless, its viewpoint on the conflict matters a lot. This
was expressed by Lebanese President Emile Lahoud in an interview to Der
Spiegel.
With reference to UN Resolution 1559, which demands that Lebanese
Army should control the entire country, Lahoud said, but it wasnt the army
that freed the occupied south of the country, rather it was the resistance
which achieved that. Without this resistance (Hezbollah) Lebanon would
still be occupied today.
Der Spiegel pressed the point by saying that Israeli Army withdrew
six years ago, yet the Lebanese Army has not fulfilled the task. Lahoud said
that strongholds of the resistance are not known. Despite the hail of bombs,
the Israelis have been unable to produce one single photo of a destroyed
resistance base, because they dont know where they are. Army bases, on
the other hand, are well known and this is why they are invariably
destroying our armed forces and, above all, civilian targets.
Speigel countered that because Lebanese Army has failed the Israeli
Army is justified in attacking. The President replied, the Israeli armed
forces are destroying Lebanon, and the international community isnt
trying to hold them back, but giving them more time to complete their plan
of destruction.
In reply to question about Israeli soldier prisoners, he said that the
exchange of prisoners has always worked perfectly in the past It is
unclear whether that will happen this time. Its charged atmosphere.
Spiegel sought explanation about his relationship with Hezbollah and
his views about Nasrallah. Hezbollah enjoys untmost prestige in
Lebanon. All over the Arab World you hear: Hezbollah maintains Arab
honour, and even though it (Hezbollah) is very small, it stands up to Israel.
And of course Nasrallah has my respect.
About UN plans for massive deployment of international troops in
southern Lebanon, he replied: That is an old proposal, which is hardly
achievable. As long as the conflict between Lebanon and Israel remains
unresolved, no international force will help, however large it may be.
Alistar Lyon observed that Hezbollah has denied Israeli hope of
swift victory. Hezbollahs guerrilla tactics and resilience have forced Israeli
Army to decide against a full-scale invasion, and instead adopt strategy of
air raids and limited ground attacks.

637

Robert Fisk thought that situation was even graver than that. Is it
possible is it conceivable that Israel is losing its war in Lebanon? In
Bint Jbeil, meanwhile, another bloodshed was taking place. Claiming to
control this southern Lebanese town, the Israelis chose to walk into a
Hezbollah trap. The moment they reached the deserted market-place, they
were ambushed from three sides, their soldiers falling to the ground under
sustained rifle fire. The remaining Israeli troops surrounded by the
terrorists they were supposed to liquidate desperately appealed for help,
but an Israeli Merkava tank and other vehicles sent to help them were also
attacked and set on fire. Up to 17 Israeli soldiers may have died so far in this
disastrous operation.
It was not meant to be like this, 15 days into Israels assault on
Lebanon. The Katyushas still streak in pairs out of southern Lebanon,
clearly visible to naked eye, white contrails that thump into Israels hillsides
and border towns.
So is it frustration or revenge that keeps Israels bomb falling on
the innocent? In the early hours two days ago, a tremendous explosion woke
me up, rattling the windows and shaking the trees outside, and a single flash
suffused the western sky over Nabatiyeh. The lives of an entire family of
seven had just been extinguished.
In Beirut, one observes the folly of Western nations with amusement
as well as horror, but, sitting in these hill villages and listening to how the
US secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice plans to reshape Lebanon is
clearly a lesson in human self-delusion. According to US correspondents
accompanying Ms Rice on her visit to the Middle East, she is proposing the
intervention of a NATO-led force along the Lebanese-Israeli border for 60
and 90 days to assure that a ceasefire exists, the deployment of an enlarged
NATO force throughout Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and then the retraining of the Lebanese army before its own deployment to the border.
This plan which, like all American proposals on Lebanon, is
exactly the same as Israels demands carries the same depth of conceit as
that of the Israeli consul general in New York, who said last week that
most Lebanese appreciate what we are doing.
The Hezbollah has been waiting and training and dreaming of this
new war for years, however ruthless we may regard the actions. They are
not going to surrender the territory they liberated from the Israeli army
in an 18-year guerrilla war, least of all to NATO at Israels bidding It is

638

Israel which is running out of time in southern Lebanon. Its attacks have for
the fifth time in 30 years placed it in the dock of war crimes in Lebanon.
There was no dearth of detractors. Kamila Hyat, in true spirit of
enlightened moderation, flayed Hezbollah in addition to criticizing Israel
and the US. Indeed, by depicting Hezbollah and its leaders as heroes, by
glorifying their stance and by broadcasting their messages to a wide
audience, some of the TV channel hosts veer dangerously close to
promoting further violence and depicting terrorism as acts of heroism.
There is also little doubt that Syria and Iran have extended significant
support to Hezbollah. Indeed, analysts in Lebanon and elsewhere have
opined that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, forced to make a humiliating
troop withdrawal from Lebanon last year, is using Hezbollah to strike back
against the US. There can also be little doubt the war has benefited
Hezbollah its leaders superbly using the media to show Israeli outrages,
depict themselves as martyrs and call for further war in tones as harsh as
those of the Israeli warmongers.
Some analysts tried to project rivalry between resistance groups of
Shias and Sunnis, completely oblivious of the fact that it was a Shia
resistance group (Hezbollah) which acted to ease pressure on a Sunni group
(Hamas). Bernard Haykel reviewed this misconstrued viewpoint.
For al-Qaeda, it is a time of panic. The groups web sites are abuzz
with messages and questions about how to respond to Hezbollahs success.
Several of al-Qaeda ideologues have issued official statements explaining
Hezbollahs actions and telling followers how to respond to them. The gist
of their argument is that the Shiites are conspiring to destroy Islam and to
resuscitate Persian imperial rule over the Middle East and ultimately the
world.
They go on to argue that thanks to the United States, Iraq has been
handed over to the Shiites, who are now wantonly massacring the
countrys Sunnis. Syria is already led by a Shiite heretic, President Bashar
al-Assad, whose policies harm the countrys Sunni majority.
Hezbollah, according to these analyses, seeks to dupe ordinary
Muslims into believing that the Shiites are defending Islams holiest cause,
Palestine, in order to cover the wholesale Shiite alliance with the United
States in Iraq and Afghanistan Ultimately, this theory goes, the Shiites will
fall in their efforts because the Israelis and Americans will destroy them
once their role in the broader Zionist-Crusader conspiracy is accomplished.

639

According to the analyst, this analysis conspirational, bizarre and

un-compelling, except to the most diehard radicals signals an important
defeat for al-Qaedas public relations campaign. The truth is that al-Qaeda
has met a formidable challenge in Hezbollah and its charismatic leader,
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, who has made canny choices that appeal to alQaedas Sunni followers. Al-Qaedas improbable conspiracy theory does
little to counter these advantages.
First, although Nasrallah wears the black turban and carries the title
of sayyid, both of which identify him as a Shiite descendent of the Prophet
Mohammad (PBUH), he preaches a non-sectarian ideology and does not
highlight his groups Shiite identity.
Second, Hezbollahs statements focus on the politics of resistance
to occupation and invoke shared Islamic principles about the right of selfdefence. Nasrallah is extremely careful to hew closely to the dictates of
Islamic law in his military attacks.
Finally, only Hezbollah can claim to have defeated Israel (in
Lebanon in 2000) and is now taking it on again, hitting Haifa and other
places with large numbers of rockets a feat that no Arab or Muslim power
has accomplished since Israels founding in 1948.
Perhaps Hezbollahs ascendancy among Sunnis will make it
possible for Shiites and Sunnis to stop the bloodletting in Iraq and to
focus instead on their real enemies. Rumblings against Israeli actions in
Lebanon from both Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq already suggest such an
outcome. That may be good news for Iraqis, but it marks a dangerous turn
for the West.
The most important part of the resistance to Israeli aggression, which
has been ignored by media and analysts, deliberately or inadvertently, has
been the resilience of Palestinians. Humera Niazi wrote, the Haaretzs
Gideon Levy describes the Gaza offensive as: A state that takes such steps
is no longer distinguishable from a terror organization. The same
newspaper carried an editorial titled: The government is losing its reason.
It added, the tactics of pressuring civilians has been tried before. But what
also happens is that local divisions evaporated and a strong united leadership
is forged. Israel was forced to negotiate with Hezbollah and to withdraw
from Lebanon. One may assume that the results will be similar this time.
Some critics see Israels dangerous agenda as creating a Hezbollah,
Hamas, Syria and Iran bloc. This is a dangerously tall order, as it would

640

increase the regional instability in the Middle East, which has already
been initiated by Israel. While defending Israel, the US blames the crisis on
militants backed by Iran and Syria.
John Pilger said, the catastrophe in the Middle East is a product of
such an imperial tyranny. It is clearly a US-ordained operation, with the
long-planned assault on Gaza and the destruction of Lebanon pretexts for a
wider campaign with the goal of installing American puppets in Lebanon,
Syria and eventually Iran.
The attendant propaganda the abuse of language and eternal
hypocrisy has reached its nadir in recent weeks. An Israeli soldier
belonging to an invasion force was captured and held, legitimately, as a
prisoner of war. Reported as a kidnapping, this set off yet more slaughter
of Palestinian civilians.
The kidnapped soldier story cancelled any serious inquiry into
Israels plans to reinvade Gaza, from which it had staged a phony
withdrawal. The fact and meaning of Hamass self-imposed 16-month
ceasefire were lost in inanities about recognizing Israel, along with Israels
state terror in Gaza the dropping of a 500lb bomb on a residential block,
the firing of as many as 9,000 heavy artillery shells into one of the most
densely populated places on earth and the nightly terrorizing with sonic
booms.
In their defence, the Palestinians fired a cluster of Qassam missiles
and killed eight Israelis: enough to ensure Israels victim hood on the
BBC The historical equivalent is not far from that of the Nazi
bombardment and starvation of the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto.
Hezbollah drone, Americas journalistic caricatures, is armed and
funded by Syria and Iran, and so they beckon an attack on those countries,
while remaining silent about Americas $3bn-a-day gift of planes and small
arms and bombs to a state whose international lawlessness is a
registered world record.
The epic injustice done to the Palestinians is the heart of the
matter. While European governmentshave remained craven, it is only
Hezbollah that has come to the Palestinians aid. How truly shaming. There is
no media narrative of the Palestinians heroic stand during two uprisings
and with slingshots and stones most of the time.
I think Orwell got it right in this passage from Nineteen EightyFour; a tale of the ultimate empire: And in the general hardening of outlook

641

that set inpractices which had been long abandoned imprisonment

without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to
extract confessionsand the deportation of whole populations not only
became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who
considered themselves enlightened and progressive.

CRUSADERS ROLE
Crusaders role has been frequently referred in the foregoing; here
some more. As it is not possible to comment on Israeli aggression without
referring to the history, so is the case with the Crusaders unconditional
support to Zionist regime.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal recalled; the old Middle East, upon which Rice
wants to build a new Middle East, was thus a product of the Balfour
Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 16, 1916 between
Britain and France; the latter defined their respective spheres of post-World
War I influence and control in the Middle East. This agreement was
negotiated in November 1915 by French diplomat Francois Georges-Picot
and Briton Mark Sykes. The understanding reached on the terrible day
allowed Britain the control of areas where now we have the Kingdom of
Jordan, Iraq and a small area around Haifa. France was to have control of
south-eastern Turkey, Northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement it is worth recalling, came into
existence in flagrant violation of an understanding reached between
Sherif Hussein Ibn Ali, the Ottoman Emir of Makkah, and Sir Henry
McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt during 1915-1916. This
understanding exists in the well preserved correspondence between the two
men. Hussein understood the promise to be rewarded in the form of an Arab
empire, encompassing the entire span between Egypt and Persia, with the
exception of imperial possessions and interests in Kuwait, Aden, and the
Syrian coast. Hussein became the official leader of the Arab revolt against
the Ottomans.
The promises to Hussein were made to have Arabs rise against
the Turks; once that deed was accomplished and Arab help was assured,
Jews in the United States were approached to influence the US to join the
First World War. The Jews wanted a homeland in Jerusalem; thus the
Balfour Declaration was issued, which assured them a home in the Holy
Land.

642

The World War I ended. Arabs were free, that is, they were free
from the Ottomans. Freedom had arrived in the Arab lands in the form
of occupation of France and Britain. The sons of Hussein were made the
kings of Trans-Jordan (later Jordan), Syria and Iraq. However, the monarchy
in Syria was abruptly ended when the French were given control over the
nation (resulting in much resistance and bloodshed), so his son (Faisal) was
installed in Iraq instead. The old-old Middle East was thus created.
But Britain and France were not happy with their shares under
the Sykes-Picot deal and thus in the 1920 San Remo conference, France
extracted an additional share of the Middle-Eastern pie: control over Syria
and Lebanon, this was duly baptized by the League of Nations in 1922. But
the old-old Middle East was still not what the English wanted, so in July
1941, they occupied two third of Lebanon.
Adel Safty said, historically, the Zionist founding ideas of a settler
colonial enterprise would not have been possible without two crucial
elements: support from the West, especially Britain and the USA, and
sustained pro-Zionist propaganda in the West from the most influential
circles.
In its search for territory to establish a Jewish state, Zionism faced
two daunting challenges: how to rally the support of the western powers
and their influential Jewish communities for the establishment of a Jewish
homeland in Palestine, Argentina or Cyprus. Secondly, how to colonize and
turn a country such as Palestine with an overwhelming Muslim majority into
a Jewish state?
The Zionists turned their attention to Britain; Jewish programs in
Russia had resulted in a flood of Russian Jewish immigrants to England
whose government came under pressure to restrict the flood of Jewish
immigration. The Balfour government appointed a royal commission to
examine the question of immigration and Theodor Herzl, the president of the
Zionist Organization, persuaded the commission to hear him as an expert
witness. That marked the beginning of a process to create a Jewish state.
An extensive propaganda campaign was launched in the US and
Britain. Weizmann enlisted the help of C P Scott, the influential editor of the
Manchester Guardian who launched a pro-Zionist propaganda campaign,
which proved of enormous value to the Zionists.
In December 1914, Scott introduced Weizmann to Lloyd George and
Herbert Samuel, the latter being a minister in the Liberal Government of
Herbert Asquith and the first Jew to be a member of cabinet This approach
643

finds its modern equivalent in the success of Israel and its friends in the US
in convincing the Bush Administration of Israels value for the
American strategic designs in the Middle East and for its so-called war on
terror.
The crusaders support to Israel is unambiguous. Dr Masooda
Bano said, can Israel launch such an aggressive attack within days of the
kidnapping of two soldiers without some behind-the-scene understanding
with the US? The Israeli army might be very strong due to the steady
support for its military by many western nations especially the US, but that
is not to say that it does not need their continued support. Threat of
economic and political sanctions can be just as effective to stop Israel from
an undesirable action as in case of any other country.
The West is sitting on the fence, refusing to condemn Israel strongly
because many western nations want to see Hezbollah curtailed. But, what
they continue to ignore is that Hezbollah is a product of these very biased
practices.
Rahimullah Yusufzai dwelled on this aspect. The US is once more
funding Israeli aggression and there was no way that any spin or explanation
would make the followers of Islam forget the disturbing events unfolding
before their eyes. In fact, most Muslims and fair-minded people of other
faiths have started blaming the US more than Israel for the violence and
suffering in the Middle East. Without American military and economic
assistance, Israel would not have occupied territory of its neighbouring Arab
countries and ignored UN resolutions calling for an end to its occupation of
Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese land. Lack of accountability has
emboldened the Jewish state to kill and destroy anyone anywhere in the
name of self-defence and the whole world knows that Israel is able to defy
the international community due to unconditional American support.
To top it all, the US has made it clear that it would come to the
rescue of Israel should it face any threat to its existence. Despite the onesided nature of its Middle East policies, the US still portrays itself as an
honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is adamant to let other
powers play a role in resolving the one issue that more than any other
dispute threatens world peace.
It seems the US and some of its close western allies such as the UK,
Canada, Australia, Netherlands and Denmark still refuse to believe that the
Palestinian issue is the root-cause of the Muslim unrest in the world. Instead
of rethinking their blind pro-Israel policies in a bid to placate the Muslims,
644

the governments of these and other western nations have become even
more supportive of the Jewish state. One major reason for failure of
diplomacy on this front is the clear pro-Israel bias of the US and the world
powers that matter. An unjust and unequal peace would keep the region
permanently at war.
Helping Israel is considered a moral obligation of the Crusaders.
The Washington Times suggested that the United States and other nations
that are serious about defeating Islamofascism have a vital interest in
helping Israel succeed in crippling Hezbollah and should be generous in
providing Israel with what it needs to get the job done.
One positive result of the Israeli offensive has been a Lebanese
backlash against Hezbollah. According to Michael Young, editorial page
editor of the Beirut Daily Star, the Lebanese (including many Shiites in
private conversation) blame Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, for
triggering the current violence and the hardships they are now enduring.
There is no such backlash. But, this remains an earnest desire to embroil
Lebanon in civil war with a view to neutralizing Hezbollah. The excessive
use of force and dropping of leaflets are aimed at achieving this goal.

Proportionality in the approach is absent. Norman Solomon

criticized the syndicated columnist Richard Cohen on this count. Anyone
who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is
madness, he (Cohen) wrote. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we
are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemys backyard,
proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs
is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile
battery. It is necessary to reestablish deterrence: You slap me. I will punch
out your lights.
While he condemns rockets fired into Israel, he expresses
pleasure about missiles fired by the Israeli government. That the death
toll of civilians is far higher from Israels weaponry does not appear to
bother him. On the contrary, he seems glad about the killing spree by the
Israeli military.
Cohens eagerness to support additional large-scale bombing by
Israel is thematic. Consider this message: Hezbollah, with the aid of Iran
and Syria, has shown that it is no longer necessary to send a dazed suicide
bomber over the border all that is needed is the requisite amount of thrust
and a warhead. That being the case, its either stupid or mean for anyone to
call for proportionality. The only way to ensure that babies dont die in their
645

cribs and old people in the streets is to make the Lebanese or the Palestinians
understand that if they, no matter how reluctantly, host those rockets, they
will pay a very, very steep price.
Cohen like so many others in the American punditocracy depicts
the death of an Israeli civilian as far more tragic and important than the
death of an Arab civilian. Theres something really sick about such
righteous support for civilian death and destruction.
George Monbiot said, Israels foreign policy and military strategy
is dependent on the approval of the United States The US arms export
control act states that no defence article or defence service shall be sold or
leased by the United States government, unless its provision will strengthen
the security of the United States and promote world peace. Weapons may be
sold to friendly countries solely for internal security, for legitimate selfdefence (or for) maintaining or restoring international peace and security.
By giving these weapons to Israel, the US government is, in effect,
stating that all its military actions are being pursued in the cause of
legitimate self-defence, American interests and world peace. The US also
becomes morally complicit in Israels murder of civilians. The diplomatic
cover this provides is indispensable.
If the US government announced that it would cease to offer military
and diplomatic support if Israel refused to hand back the occupied territories,
Israel would have to negotiate. The US government has the power over
that country. But can it be used?
Israel is not solely to blame for this crisis. The firing of rockets into
its cities is an intolerable act of terrorism. But to understand why the people
assaulting that country will not put down their arms, the king of fairyland
would be forced to come to terms with the consequences of Israels
occupation of other peoples lands and of its murder of civilians; of his own
invasion of Iraq and his failure, across the past six years, to treat the
Palestinians fairly. And this he seems incapable of doing Bush is
constructing a millenarian narrative of escalating conflict leading to the
final triumph of freedom and democracy.
Blind backing of Israel implicates America for conniving in
commission of war crimes. The New York Times wrote, it took the
worldwide uproar over the Qana casualties to finally jolt the Bush
Administration into asking for something it should have sought many days
earlier. Washingtons instant turnabout and Israels instant response has left
the damaging impression that had America expressed similar concerns
646

sooner, these and many other innocent Lebanese lives might have been
saved. In fact, it was no change of heart, but only a ploy to mask atrocious
and ugly face of Israel.
Jimmy Carter said, it is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend
itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and
counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that
somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the
devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and
worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of
both Israel and the United States has intensified.
The fact remains that US policy in the Middle East is
dominated by Israel. Eric S Margolis opined that while, trying to
placate the Arab World, the US sent a paltry $ 30 million worth of food and
blankets to Lebanon for the 20 percent of its population made refugees by
US-encouraged bombing and ethnic cleansing by Israel. With the other hand,
it rushes plane loads of precision bombs to Israel, whose influential
American supporters now totally dominate US Mideast policymaking.
Rice also proclaimed the US was going to midwife the birth of new
Mideast. This latest absurdity comes from the same arrogant knownothing, religious fundamentalists and extremist ideologues that fathered
the Iraq debacle.
Far from building a new Middle East, the Bush Administration has
set the region ablaze. Watching the destruction of Lebanon, few can now
doubt that the Bush White House and Congress have declared open war
on the Muslim World.
In Washington, the true agenda of Vice President Dick Cheney and
his pro-Israeli neocon allies was becoming clear. Israels attempted
destruction of Hezbollah is the first step in a long-planned US-Israeli
campaign to strip away Irans allies and turn Lebanon into a joint USIsraeli protectorate. The second step will be an assault on Syria. Step three of
this domino theory: isolating and crippling Iran by a massive bombing
campaign accompanied by renewed efforts to overthrow its government.
Attacking Hezbollah also serves as the long predicted November
surprise to boost sagging Republican fortunes in mid-term elections.
Every time Bush launches military operations, his opinion poll ratings go up.
If the Republicans lose control of Congress in mid-term elections, Bush and
his allies could face criminal investigations over the faked-up war in Iraq.

647

The Administration and its media allies into believing that Lebanon is
a new front in the so-called war on terrorism are now misleading
Americans, steeped in deep ignorance and prejudice about the Mideast. Most
Americans cant tell the difference between Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah,
Hamas, or the PLO: all are evil terrorists waiting to attack the USA.
Increasingly in America, the word Muslim means enemy.
President Bush failed to stop al-Qaeda and is now stuck in two lost
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His answer: start a new crusade in Lebanon
against Washingtons latest bogyman, Hezbollah, and its Syrian and
Iranian allies. In America, war fever wins elections I see Israel once again
getting sucked into another bloody, dirty, pointless war there. Hezbollah
wont be defeated by bombing or limited ground assaults: it fought Israel for
18 years and won.
Enraged that Hezbollah would dare fight back, Israels government
made the calamitous decision to destroy much of Lebanon on the bad advice
of its chief of staff, an air force general Now it is sending its soldiers once
again in the Lebanese quagmire from which it will not easily withdraw.
The bitter lessons of Israels 1980s defeat in Lebanon are forgotten, just as in
Iraq, the US military completely forgot Vietnams hard lessons The big
winner in this unfolding and totally unnecessary catastrophe is, of
course, Osama bin Laden. George Bush is right on spot with Shaikh
Osamas grand strategy.
Jimmy Carter blamed Bush regime for ignoring diplomatic
course in the Middle East. He wrote. the urgent need in Lebanon is that
Israeli attacks stop, the nations regular military forces control the southern
region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks
against Israel be prevented. Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese
territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners.
Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive
cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive
settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented sixyear absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal.
Traumatized Israelis cling to the false hope that their lives will be
made safer by incremental unilateral withdrawals from occupied areas,
while Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than
human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative security barrier that
embarrasses Israels friends and that fails to bring safety or stability.

648

There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples

in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key UN resolutions,
official American policy and the international road map for peace by
occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians.

Lebanese resented the US support to Israel. Robert Fisk wrote,

Mr Jeffrey Feldman, in the past few hours, had to listen in person as
the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, desperately appealed for a
ceasefire to end the destruction of Lebanon by the Israeli air force. Is the
values of human life in Lebanon less than that of the citizens of other
countries? Mr Siniora asked. Can the international community stand by
while such callous retribution by Israel is inflicted on us?
All this presented Mr Feldman with a little problem. This was the
same Mr Feldman, remember, who was heaping laurels on Mr Siniora
and his democratically elected government last year for its cedar
revolution, for throwing the Syrian Army out. But if he were to praise Mr
Sinioras speech condemning Israel, Mr Feldman would, no doubt, be
summoned back to the State Department in Washington and dispatched to
the US embassy in Ulan Bator. So what was he to say when asked for a
comment on Mr Sinioras speech? It was, Mr Feldman said, articulate and
touching. Articulate as in he-knows-how-to-string-the-words-together
and touching, as is sad.
Mr Siniora did not mention the Hezbollah. He did not say he had
been powerless to stop this reckless attack on Israel last week. He didnt
want to criticize this powerful guerrilla army in his midst which had proved
that Syria still controls events in this beautiful, damaged country. And he did
not dare criticize Syed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollahs leader, whom Israel
tried to assassinate a few hours later by dropping a massive bomb on what it
called a bunker in Beiruts southern suburbs
The US was criticized strongly on account of obstructing an early
ceasefire. The Guardian wrote, Rice, backed by Britain alone, spent 90
minutes deflecting and then blocking demands by all the other participants
for a joint statement calling for an immediate ceasefire. Instead, the
conference ended in fudge, calling for an urgent and sustainable ceasefire,
not an immediate one.
The US alliance with Israel has been a fact of international life for
decades, but seldom has Washington acted so blatantly in support of that
country and with such disregard for the rest of the international

649

community. By blocking diplomatic action, the US has alienated the Arab

World even further. And Britain, shamefully, has been a party to this The
US has to end its policy of blocking diplomacy in order to allow Israel time
to deal with Hezbollah militarily an option that Israel may be finding less
attractive anyway in the face of stiff Hezbollah resistance.
Such is the poverty of US diplomacy in the region, made worse
under the Bush Administration, that Washington has no diplomatic links
with Iran and only limited ones with Syria. There is nothing to stop her
flying to Damascus to open negotiations with Syrias president, Bashar
Assad, no matter how distasteful that might be to her.
As in 1996, an immediate ceasefire must take priority, with
negotiations on longer-term arrangements to follow. Achieving a ceasefire
will be difficult enough without overloading the initial negotiations with
a search for permanent solutions, wrote Warren Christopher.
If a ceasefire is the goal, the United States has an indispensable role
to play. A succession of Israeli leaders has turned to us, and only us, when
they have concluded that retaliation for Hezbollah attacks has become
counterproductive. Israel plainly trusts no one else to negotiate on its
behalf and will accept no settlement in which we are not deeply involved.
Syria may well be a critical participant in any ceasefire
arrangements just it was in 1993 and 1996. Although Syria no longer has
troops in Lebanon, Hezbollahs supply routes pass through the heart of
Syria, and some Hezbollah leaders may reside in Damascus, giving the
Syrians more leverage over Hezbollahs actions than any other country save
Iran.
Because Hezbollah has positioned itself as the David in this war,
every day that the killing continues burnish its reputation within the Arab
World. Every day that more of the Lebanese infrastructure is turned to
dust, Beiruts fragile democracy becomes weaker, both in its ability to
function and in the eyes of its people.
The impact is not limited to Lebanon or Israel. Every day America
gives the green light to further Israeli violence, our already tattered
reputation sinks even lower. The reluctance of our closest allies in the
Middle East even to receive Secretary Rice this week in their capitals attests
to this fact.
Despite the criticism, there was no chance of timely ceasefire as
observed by Humera Niazi. The US Secretary of States recent visit to the

650

Middle East does not signify that a ceasefire will be achieved soon. And
CNN reports that Israel would like to continue for another three weeks
before calling it a day; while the Israeli military chief is yet to decide on a
large-scale ground invasion. Hezbollahs strategy could be to hold out, as it
has shown its prowess by firing rockets into Israel for quite some time. And
this is something Israel will not be able to sustain positively.
Walid M Sadi observed that it is obvious that Washington wanted to
give Israel the time to finish its military campaigns in Lebanon and
Gaza before it would accept even the idea of holding a UN Security Council
meeting. The best evidence of this is the failure of the recent Rome
conference on Lebanon to adopt a clearly worded resolution calling for an
immediate ceasefire.
When civilians or civilian targets are intentionally targeted or hit by
indiscriminate bombing as in Lebanon and Gaza, there can be no doubt that
war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed by Israel. The
least that the UN Security Council should do is to act fast and consider
referring these crimes to the International Criminal Court as it has done with
the situation in Darfur.
The stiff resistance by Hezbollah forces is forcing Israeli generals to
rethink their strategy. It is now dawning on all parties that an immediate
ceasefire is indispensable for a lasting and enduring peace on the IsraeliLebanese border. This is where the UN Security Council comes in and the
sooner its allowed to carry out its mandate under the UN Charter the better.
Blairs government has acted as an accomplice. Labour MP Sadiq
Khan said, since 9/11 British foreign policy has failed to stand up against an
increasing trend to brutal, and usually ineffective, counterinsurgency around
the world. This is unfortunate because, as in Lebanon, the UK could play a
more useful role. Moreover, if it doesnt then Labour could lose more
supporters than it lost over the governments decision to go to war in Iraq.
Lebanon is not another Rwanda but Israel, like Hezbollah, is
committing war crimes in Lebanon. And what is Britain doing to protect
the victims of these war crimes? What happened to Britains responsibility
to protect them?
The people being killed happened to be mainly Muslims. But that is
not the point. The point is that war crimes should be condemned no matter
who commits them, or whom they are committed against, and whether they
are committed in the name of some evil racism or a misplaced sense of what

651

will defeat terrorism. If British foreign policy cannot command greater

respect among its own citizens, what chance is there in the Middle
East?
Robert Fisk noted, Blair will increase the urgency of diplomacy.
Think about that for a moment. Diplomacy wasnt urgent at the beginning.
Then I suppose it became fairly urgent and now this mendacious man is
going to increase the urgency of diplomacy; after which, I suppose, it can
become supper-urgent or of absolutely paramount importance, the time
decided no doubt by Israels belief that it has won the war against
Hezbollah or, more likely, because Israel realizes that it is an un-winnable
war and wants us to take the casualties.
From the border of Pakistan to the Mediterranean with the sole
exception of the much-hated Syria and Iran, which might be smothered in
blood later we have turned a 2,500-mile swath of the Muslim World
into a hell-disaster of unparalleled suffering and hatred.
Israel has special privileges afforded to no other nation. It can do
exactly what Blair would never have done and still receive the British
Governments approbation. It can trash the Geneva Conventions because
the Americans have done that in Iraq and it can commit war crimes and
murder UN soldiers like the four unarmed observers who refused to leave
their post under fire.
The idea that Nasrallah is going to kneel before a NATO general and
hand over his sword that this disciplined, ruthless, frightening guerrilla
army is going to surrender to NATO is a folly beyond self-delusion But
Blair and Bush want to send a combat force into southern Lebanon. Well, I
shall be there, I suppose, to watch its swift destruction in an orgy of car and
suicide bombings by the same organization that yesterday fired another new
longer-than-ever range missile that landed near Aula in Israel.
John Pilger wrote, during the Blair era in Britain, precocious
revisionists of Empire have been embraced by the pro-war media.
Inspired by Americas Messianic claims of victory in the Cold War, their
pseudo histories have sought not only to hose down the blood slick for
slavery, plunder, famine and genocide that was British imperialismbut
also to rehabilitate Gladstonian convictions of superiority and promote the
imposition of western values, as Niall Ferguson puts it.
Ferguson relishes values, an unctuous concept that covers both
the barbarism of the imperial past and todays ruthless, rigged free
market. The new code for race and class is culture. Thus, the enduring,
652

piratical campaign by the rich and powerful against the poor and weak,
especially those with natural resources, has become a clash of civilizations.
Western media not only backed the Israeli aggression but acted as an
instigator. Ramzy Baroud wrote, by not challenging the Israeli narrative
in any meaningful way, and dumping it on hapless viewers all around the
world, the uncritical media has become a tool in the hands of Israels war
strategists and their eternal concoctions. Consider for example, an Israeli
military commander tells a BBC correspondent dispatched to the border area
between Israel and Gaza, that Israel intends on opening the border for as
long as it takes to offset the humanitarian crisis developing in Gaza. The
Israeli army representative in a barefaced lie declares that the border has
always been open, despite the perpetual Palestinian threat on the state of
Israel.
Is it possible that the BBC and its mighty researchers are unaware of
the fact that Gaza has been under a very strict military siege since Hamas
democratic advent to power through the January 2006 elections? Could it be
that the Western media has missed the dozens of shocking reports, including
some by the World Bank, that have warned that the Israeli siege, which
began months before the capture of Shalit was soon to create chaos and
panic among the already malnourished Palestinians in Gaza? Did they all
miss statements by top Israeli officials, vowing to carry on with the siege
until the ousting of Hamas?

How long the US will continue supporting a terrorist state? Eduardo

Galeano said, for centuries the slaughter of Jews was the favourite sport of
Europeans. Auschwitz was the natural culmination of an ancient river of
terror, which had flowed across all Europe. How much longer will
Palestinians and other Arabs be made to pay for crimes they didnt commit?
Hezbollah didnt exist when Israel razed Lebanon in earlier
invasions. How much longer will we continue to believe the story of this
attacked attacker, which practices terrorism, because it has the right to
defend itself from terrorism?
How much longer will we continue to accept that torture can be
legitimized? Israel has ignored forty-six resolutions of the General Assembly
and other UN bodies. How much longer will Israel enjoy the privilege of
selective deafness?
In the Security Council, the US has vetoed forty resolutions
condemning actions of Israel. How much longer will the United Nations act
653

as if it were just another name for the United States? Since the Palestinians
had their homes confiscated and their land taken from them, much blood has
flowed. How much longer will blood flow so that force can justify what
law denies? ... History is repeated day after day, year after year, and ten
Arabs die for every one Israeli. How much longer will an Israeli life be
measured as worth ten Arab lives?
To justify the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, war is
called peace. The Israelis are patriots, and the Palestinians are terrorists, and
terrorists sow universal alarm. How much longer will the media broadcast
fear instead of news?
The slaughter happening today, which is not the first and I fear will
not be the last, is happening in silence. Has the world gone deaf? How much
longer will the outcry of the outraged be sounded on a bell of straw?
The bombing is killing children, more than a third of the victims.
Those who dare denounce this murder are called anti-Semites. How
much longer will the critics of state terrorism be considered anti-Semites?
How much longer will we accept this grotesque form of extortion? Are the
Jews who are horrified by what is being done in their name anti-Semites?
Are there not Arab voices that defend a Palestinian homeland but condemn
fundamentalist insanity?
Terrorists resemble one another: state terrorists, respectable members
of government, and private terrorists, madmen acting alone or in those
organized in groups hard at work since the Cold War battling communist
totalitarianism. All act in the name of various gods, whether God, Allah
or Jehovah.
Isnt it clear that that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the
invasion of Gaza and Lebanon are the incubators of hatred, producing
fanatic after fanatic after fanatic? We are the only species of animal that
specializes in mutual extermination.
Karen Armstrong added, whatever Bushs personal beliefs, the
ideology of the Christian right is both familiar and congenial to him.
This strange amalgam of ideas can perhaps throw light on the behaviour of a
president, who, it is said, believes that God chose him to lead the world to
rupture, who has little interest in social reform, and those selective concerns
for life issues has now inspired him to veto important scientific research. It
explains his unconditional and uncritical support for Israel, his willingness
to use Jewish end-time warriors to fulfill vision of his own arguably

654

against Israels best interests and to see Syria and Iranas entirely
responsible for the unfolding tragedy.
Fundamentalists, do not want a humanly constructed peace; many,
indeed, regard the UN as abode of the anti-Christ. The willingness of the US
to turn a blind eye to the suffering of innocent people in Lebanon will
certainly fuel the rage of the extremists and lead to further acts of terror.

MUSLIMS ROLE
Ordinary Muslims everywhere are today really shocked and
worried. Their hearts bleed over the massacre of Muslims in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, and now in Lebanon Everyone knows that if the
Muslims dont get united, the next on the firing line may be Syria, then Iran
and then The Muslims leadership must represent the feelings of the
followers of Islam. Its time to say, First comes Islam, and have faith in it,
observed Ansar Abbasi.
Ijaz Tabassum from Kual Lumpur wrote, in these trying times, if the
rest of the world is ignoring this issue, at least the Muslims and especially
Arabs should unite and stop killing each other. But I am ashamed to say
that they dont have the courage to fight the armed Israelis but killing
unarmed Iraqis is an achievement for them.

Unity of Ummah remained elusive. Muslims have a platform to

show their solidarity; OIC, which since its existence it has remained a
showpiece. Ansar Mahmood Bhatti opined that the organization did not do
anything to cope with the post-9/11 scenario when the West was at its worst
against Muslims. It was the time for the OIC to act judiciously and promptly
to counter all those accusations and mudslinging but it failed to come up to
expectations. The dilemma of the OIC is that it does not reflect and represent
the wishes of ordinary people nor does it allow them to participate in the
decision making processes.
The News observed, after days of dilly-dallying the Organization of
Islamic Conference has finally decided to get into the act perhaps to
refute the many who think its days are numbered and do and say
something with regarding to Israels invasion of Lebanon. Muslims would
be better off if they do not meet to issue a lifeless statement amounting to
self-ridicule.

655

Can the OIC meeting bring these countries together to use the oil
card as a weapon against Israel? Unfortunately, one suspects that the answer
to even this would be in the negative because the Arab and Muslim World
has never been united in such times and because many of its rulers have
ties with the US that they rather not risk jeopardizing.
In another editorial the newspaper added, the world, including much
of the Muslim World, seemed to be merely standing by and watching Israel
indiscriminately kill civilians and destroy a small and embattled country in
the name of security and self-defence. The double standards on view here
were simply breathtaking and designed to further alienate the Muslim street:
the only people who were defending this hapless population were being
condemned and ostracized by a succession of the worlds great and good.
What has incensed people across the Muslim World and beyond is
the lack of urgency being shown by those who control our destinies. The
current bout of diplomacy being undertaken by Ms Rice on behalf of the US
seems extremely cynical to the embattled people of Lebanon, who view it as
a ploy to delay the ceasefire so that Israel is able to achieve its cruel and
nebulous ends. Who needs honest brokers such as these?
Shireen M Mazari said, as a Muslim I am angry not only at the US
and Israel but also at the Muslim states which have shown a total lack of
courage and will to challenge the lawlessness of the Israeli-US combine
which is resulting in the murder of countless innocents in Palestine and
Lebanon. With all its combined economic and military potential and
capabilities, the Muslim World has shown an amazing degree of helplessness
in the face of the Israeli military aggression. A lack of unity and parochial
interests has made the OIC, for all intents and purposes, the Organization for
Immobilized Countries. One by one each can be victimized at will it would
appear especially within the Arab World.
An emergency meeting of the executive committee of this ineffectual
body will take place in Malaysia on August 3, but it would have been more
appropriate if an OIC envoy had paid a visit to Beirut at least two weeks
earlier. Even in symbolic terms it would have given a feeling to the
Lebanese that they had not been abandoned by the Muslim World. As it is, as
a Muslim I watched in vain to see a timely high profile visit from a Muslim
leader to Beirut even as representatives of European countries arrived in that
besieged capital. And as a Muslim I have been reduced to shame to see
deafening silence of the Muslim World in the face of the continuing killings

656

of Arabs by the Israelis and in the face of impassioned pleas of the Lebanese
leadership.
A few whimpers are all one continues to hear but no challenge to
the Israeli killing spree. Are the Muslim states really so helpless in the face
of Israeli aggression and killing? We, who are so ready to kill each other,
have been frozen into inaction as the brave nation of Lebanon faces the
might of a murderous Israel. Or is it our internal differences that prevent us
from unifying into a source, of power and strength? Is this what the Ummah
has been reduced to?
As a so-called moderate or westernized Muslim I resent the
unhindered targeting of Muslim states by the powerful and their allies
especially the US and Israel. And, in this context, I cannot help but admire
those amongst us who have the courage to fight for the just cause of
Palestine and the battle against Zionist aggression. But as an ordinary
Muslim who has never seen the need to wear my religion on my sleeve, I am
also frustrated at the continuing loss of political and social space to the
extremists in our amidst, because of the sheer ineffectiveness of the
mainstream Muslim leadership to defend the rights of the Muslims and to
protect the Muslims from the killings at the hands of rogue and criminal
states.
The Muslim states of the Middle East are being ripped asunder and
Rice has the nerve to proclaim that these are the birth pangs of a new
Middle East! The foundations of a subjugated Arab World are being
built on Arab blood, especially that of its future generations given what
seems to be the special targeting of children in Lebanon and Palestine. I
suppose the US logic in allowing Israel its killing spree, and obstructing
international calls for an immediate ceasefire is to let as many of the next
generation of Lebanese and Palestinians be killed as is possible so that
eventually there are few left to fight the tyranny of Israel and its expanding
occupation of Arab lands. Zionists were defusing the most feared population
time bomb.
The voice of the Muslim states has been muted effectively. But the
voice of Muslim people cries out loudly. As a Muslim, I see us besieged
from without and from within and as the carnage continues against the
Palestinians and Lebanese my sense of outrage at Israel and the US is
juxtaposed by my shame as part of the Muslim Ummah.
At last, one of the Muslim rulers, Prince Hassan bin Talal, picked up
the courage to speak. The events of past three weeks have brought us to
657

the edges of the abyss. They are the result not of timeless and inevitable
conflict, but of intransigence, fear and a shocking lack of creativity by
leaders in our region and beyond. The indiscriminate loss of life on all sides
has polarized our populations and shown diplomacy for the devalued and
scorned art it has become. The focus on polemics and the ensuing escalation
of violence has sidelined the very real and dangerous concerns that underline
our regions spiraling decline.
It is evident to us all that the military might cannot cure the evils of
our region. Violence begets violence and the mass bombings of civilians can
only result in increased use of terror tactics further down the line The
anger and trauma created by hundreds of dead and injured and the
displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians so far can only have
violent repercussions for a hitherto democratic, pluralistic and
multicultural Lebanon reality. The shockwaves are felt by our entire
region.
The prince, true to the character of the elite he belongs to, begged
for peace by reminding the Zionists and the Crusaders that like them Arab
Muslims are also the Children of Abraham. He also reminded of his brother
King Hussein and Yitzhak Rabi who strived not to wage wars, but to win
peace. The prince, however, forgot that the Jews as well as Christians do not
acknowledge Abrahaman-kinship. He also did not realize that other Arabs
may not be willing to sell the entire Palestinian population inhabiting West
Bank to secure peace for his kingdom.
He concluded, the sooner a cessation of hostilities is achieved and
international peacekeeping forces are deployed on both sides of the border,
the sooner a collective strive toward institutionalized regional stability can
begin. Deployment of peacekeeping force is the aim of the Crusaders.
Muslim intelligentsia is equally to blame for not projecting and
defending Islam against Western attacks. Most of the books published in the
West carry titles on Islam, Jihad and Muslims and each title carries pictures
of men and women carrying guns, depicting them as terrorists. Not even a
single book has been authored by any Muslim scholar in response to the
Western propaganda, opined Ansar Mahmood Bhatti.
The Arabs failed to perceive the situation realistically. A report by the
Reuters said, Israel can also take comfort that Saudi clerics who often
encourage Muslims to support embattled brethren in places such as
Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and Iraq also oppose Hezbollah.

658

It is not allowed to support this Shiite party, to operate under its

control or to pray for their victory. Our advice to Sunnis is to have
nothing to do with them, reads a fatwa, or edict, issued by Wahhabi authority
Sheikh Abdullah bin Jabreen Nasser al-Omar tells followers that
Hezbollah is not fighting on behalf of Sunni Muslims in Palestine or
elsewhere, it is a tool in the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
The report, however, added that clerics position, like their
governments, risks sparking resentment among ordinary Saudis, who like
other Arabs see Hezbollah challenging historical foe Israel. Most Arabs see
Israel, which does not want to return all of the Arab territories Sheikh
Abdelaziz al-Qassem, a liberal cleric, said the Wahhabi hardliners were
out of touch with ordinary people. They dont think off their Wahhabi
world.
Dr Farrukh Saleem observed that most of Arab countries are with the
Crusaders. Major players have already picked side: Saudi Arabia, Egypt
and Jordan have condemned Hezbollah. Within the G-8, the US, Japan,
Germany, Britain and Canada insist Israel is defending itself against terror
and Hezbollah is the root of the crisis. French President Jacques Chirac, on
the other hand, says that the forces who jeopardize the security, stability and
the sovereignty of Lebanon must be stopped.
In essence, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, US, Japan, Germany,
Britain and Canada feel that Israel is defending itself against terror
while France, Russia and Italy have spoken out in defence of Lebanon.
Hezbollah, Iran and Syria somehow remain adamant at taking on the world.
Militarily, the US-led block cannot be beaten. Hezbollah fights on,
firstly, to demonstrate to the Muslim World that it can take on Israel, and
secondly, to entrap Israel into a full-scale Lebanese invasion. If the latter
were to happen, Hezbollah would then move on to an insurgency and do to
Israel what Iraq is doing to the US. Israel wants to crush Hezbollah,
restructure Lebanese politics and withdraw.
The US would be looking for an opportunity to place its military
assets in Lebanon after an absence of 23 years For the Pentagon, the
Israeli offensive into Lebanon may indeed be the first step towards
dislodging the ayatollahs in Iran, and removing the Baathist regime in
Syria.
Restructuring of Middle East for it to reflect Americas geostrategic preferences is underway. The alignment of forces is as follows:
the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Britain, Germany and Israel all want
659

Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and Syria neutralized. There is also the allcritical Shia-Sunni angle whereby Sunni Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are
aligned with the US.
These Arab rulers have been scared by the West by projecting a Shiite
monster. They have taken the side of the Crusaders, who have dangerous
designs for the region as mentioned by Dilip Hiro. The surprise was not that
the Sunni terrorist organization should be opposed to the Israelis and their
allies, but that it should give its support to the Shias of Hezbollah although
Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda deputy leader who issued the call to arms,
did not mention Hezbollah by name. Yet only last year, al-Zawahiri was
calling the Shia of Iraq infidels.
At the Arab foreign ministers conference in Cairo earlier this month,
the new division was much in evidence Washington was swift to exploit
the successful Saudi initiative as were Israeli policy-makers. We are
finally going to fight Hezbollah on the ground, said an adviser to the Israeli
defence minister, Amir Peretz. The Israeli people are ready for it. And the
Sunni Muslim world also expects us to fight Shia fundamentalism. Such a
blatant intervention in the Islamic schism by Israel is likely to prove highly
counter-productive
The entire ummah (world Muslim community) should be proud of
the bravery shown both by the Palestinians and the Lebanese confronting
Israel, said Sheikh Abdul Rahman of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, in his
Friday sermon. I appeal to Muslim leaders to return to sound reason and
unify their ranks.
The disjunction between Arab governments and their people is
evident elsewhere, too. In Egypt, 75 prominent political leaders, academics
and former government officials declared solidarity with Hezbollah and
criticized the government for its silence and impotence.
So far, there is little evidence that the official viewpoint is gaining
support among the populace. Hezbollah and the Iranians are embarrassing
the hell out of the Arab governments, says Riad Kahwai, head of a thinktank in Dubai.
In Saudi Arabia, Shias (about 10 percent of the population) have been
discriminated against since the establishment of the kingdom in 1932;
almost all of them live in the oil-rich eastern province, where they are a
majority among Saudi nationals. Any conflict between these Shias,
radicalized by the events in Lebanon, and the Sunnis will have a
devastating impact on the worlds oil supply.
660

In the Arab Middle East, it is only in Syria where the people and the
political elite seem to be in agreement over Lebanon, despite the fact that the
country is more than two-thirds Sunni, yet it is ruled by a president, Bashar
al-Assad, who belongs to the Alawi community, a sub-sect within Shia
Islam, accounting for only about a sixth of the population.
Amid this division stand those who benefit from it. First there is
Hezbollah itself. It does not appear to distinguish between Shias and
Sunnis and has been cooperating actively with Hamas, its Palestinian Sunni
equivalent, since 2004.
Following the Wests cessation of financial aid to the Hamas
government in the Palestinian territories earlier this year, Iran became the
first country to offer it financial support: $ 30 million. Irans constitution
treats the four major schools of Sunni Islam on a par with the official
religion, Twelver Shia Islam.
The principal obstacle to Iran achieving its ambition is, of course, the
United States. Many commentators perceive the present Hezbollah-Israeli
clash is a proxy war between Iran and America. In this asymmetrical
conflict, if Hezbollah manages merely to survive despite its pounding by
Israel, Iran will be regarded as the winner, America, the loser.
Shafqat Mahmood talked about Pakistans state of indecision. We
have become complicit bystanders in this defining conflict between Israel
and those resisting its hegemonic design. If Israel prevails the Palestinian
will lose the prospect of a viable state forever. If Hezbollah deflates the
legend of Israels military invincibility, a just settlement to the Arab-Israeli
conflict may become possibility. This fight is not just another skirmish; it
contains within it the seeds of a future Middle East.
While these momentous events are going on, which mean a great deal
to the people of Pakistan, what is our government up to? As the second
most populous Muslim state in the world, and a nuclear power to boot,
one would expect it to play some role. No one advocates a military
engagement but it can raise its voice against the suffering of the Lebanese
and the Palestinian people.
What we have done instead is issue routine bureaucratic
statements Our ruling general, lapsing into a parade ground accent, is
equally aggressive towards India but not a word on Israeli atrocities. I know
we are Americas allies, and some may argue that the Middle East conflict is
not our fight, but are we so dead that suffering of the Palestinians and the
Lebanese mean nothing to us?
661

Maybe we are too busy kow-towing to the Americans and any serious
expression of discontent with Israel is perceived as dangerous. But, do we
have no regard for the sentiments of our people? We sent our foreign
minister to meet his Israeli counterpart last year when it was obvious even to
the uninitiated that there has been no fundamental change in Israeli thinking.
It was said then that this gives us leverage to play a role in the Arab-Israeli
conflict. What has happened to this so called leverage? Are we playing any
role at all or just sitting by the wayside twiddling out thumbs?
The answer is that we have played no significant role. We could
have used our friendship with the Americans to emphasize the necessity of
an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. But we have not. Building on our
famous opening up to Israel, we could have sent it a message that the
carnage it is unleashing on innocent civilians in Lebanon is unacceptable.
We did nothing of the sort.
The Observer spoke for the need of the dialogue. There can be
no peace without engagement by Israel and her allies with the states that
antagonize them: Syria and Iran. That is an unappealing prospect at the best
of times because they are thuggish regimes. It is especially galling now
because diplomatic overtures could look like a reward for waging proxy war
in Lebanon via Hezbollah.
But the alternative giving Israel free rein to fight that war is
worse. That would be a catastrophe, not because Israel is wrong to defend
itself, but because of the human cost of its campaign so farand because it
could lose. If the conflict is allowed to continue, the Lebanese state will
collapse, depriving the Middle East of one of its few democracies and
shifting the balance of power in the region towards armed Islamists. So,
the worries about Israel losing the war have crept in.
Sami Hermez said, it is no longer time for a dialogue or
collaboration with Israel. It is impossible to dialogue or negotiate with a
party that throws the scales off balance so radically, forcefully and
unabashedly. Such dialogue postures as Arabs have witnessed in every
negotiation since the dawn of Zionism result in terms that are dictated and
enforced from above, with Israels rights taking precedence over those of
Arabs.
If the events in Lebanon and Palestine have stirred your conscience
then dedicate a portion of your time and life to ensure that violence and
injustice do not continue unabated. Beyond donations and demonstrations,
BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) is one way to effect a lasting
662

change. Get together with people already dedicated to this and lobby
your institutions The goal is to put pressure and create a comprehensive
threat to boycott. There will be pressure and accusations trying to force you
to quit But always remember those of us who endure Israels wars,
occupations and injustices, under the pressure of precision guided missiles,
and misguided foreign policies, trying to force us surrender.

IMPACT
The most significant impact of the war has been the increase in the
anger of Muslim masses. Rahimullah Yusufzai wrote, the Arab street today
is seething with anti-US and anti-Israel rage even in Egypt and Jordan, the
two countries that concluded peace agreements with Israel by succumbing to
US arms-twisting and financial incentives. Non-representative governments
in the Arab and Islamic countries might sign any number of peace
agreements with Israel and grant diplomatic recognition to the Jewish state
but the people there are unlikely to accept such decisions unless the Israeli
occupation of Arab territory is brought to an end and the Palestinians are
granted the right to establish a truly independent state.
Patrick Seale said, the indirect costs are also very great. Hate for
Israel is now so widespread and deep-seated as to put in doubt its long-term
acceptance in the region. Americas reputation in the Arab World and
Muslim World has been tremendously degraded, with dangerous
consequences for its future interests and security of its citizens.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf states and Jordan, traditionally close to
the United States, have been angered by a war which has gravely
embarrassed them in the eyes of their public opinion and forced them to
rethink their dependence on the US. What is American friendship worth,
they ask, if the protection of Israel overrides all other consequences?
ElBaradei in his interview to Der Spiegel said, the more violence
they commit, the more they radicalize their enemies. This conflict
threatens to extend to epidemic proportions, even beyond the region. The
Middle East has no real borders. Everything that happens there directly
influences the rest of the world.
Dr Masooda Bano wrote, the reality that Israel does have nuclear
weapons makes its current hostile posture very threatening for the whole of
the Middle East. Attacking a nation, killing countless civilians in the name
of chasing a specific group The most disturbing aspect is that the Israeli
663

people support these aggressive policies. With such an aggressive mindset,

it is difficult to see peace in the region.
Some analysts feared that war could escalate. Ikram Sehgal opined
that if Syria and then Iran are drawn into the conflict directly, things may go
out of control in the region. There will be no way of keeping the US out and
that may be catastrophic given that Shias in Iraq will feel obliged to strike at
the dispersed US and coalition forces in Iraq. There is growing conviction
among geopolitical analysts that this could be the Israeli strategy, to force
the US and coalition forces into a greater conflict.
The US army already has its hands full in Iraq. To add to that the
new Iraqi Army has yet to see its loyalties tested. In fact Hosni Mubarak
could well find the Egyptian armed forces simmering with discontent if Iran
and Syria enter the equation this discontent is already manifest in the
streets of Cairo and Alexandria.
While saying that the situation could go out of control, he definitely
did not mean anyone from Ummah. Those who are in control of the things,
US and Israel, have sorted out all the details and chalked out a plan for the
Middle East in particular and the Muslim World in general and are dealing
with them one by one and others will be targeted at appropriate time. It is
not a matter of choice for the disunited members of the Ummah. As regards
keeping the US out, how could the analyst assume that the US has not been
in it at any stage?
Prem Shankar Jha observed that the chaos is proving infectious.
Pressure is building for attacks on Iran and Syria on the grounds that
these are the cradles of Hezbollah. On the BBCs Hard Talk on Monday,
former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar proposed Israel be invited
to join NATO. If it did so, under article 5 of the covenant, all European
nations would be obliged to join it in bombing Lebanon.
The US efforts to block agreement on ceasefire led to above
speculations. In fact, the US simply wanted to give maximum time to Israel
to do the job in hand and secure a favourable resolution for end of
hostilities in Lebanon.
The Guardian warned, the only certain consequence of another two
weeks of fighting will be several hundred more dead Arabs and Jews.
The other consequence of continued military action appears to be increased
support for Hezbollah throughout the Middle East, even in areas where it
was previously regarded with some suspicion.

664

The real problem is in finding a ceasefire mechanism that allows

Israel to claim a tangible result from nearly three weeks of fruitless
fighting. A US demand for a ceasefire would allow Israels guns to be
silenced while saving face. Since that hasnt happened, Israels leaders
appear to be at a loss.
Jonathan Steele said, attempts to impose an international force would
risk destroying the Lebanese government and revive the danger of a civil
war. Perhaps this is Israels intention. It has shown great skill in
exacerbating splits between Fatah and Hamas in the Palestinian territories,
and may think of doing the same in Lebanon.
European governments should resist the idea. Jacques Chirac has
rightly said a NATO force is out of question since the alliance is seen as the
armed wing of the West. Even with this association, any force would risk
being seen as Israels instrument. Israels plan seems to be either to use
foreigners to do its work or, if it fails, to turn south Lebanon into a giant
Rafah the city in Gaza where it demolished hundreds of homes and created
a free-fire zone in which anything that moved was shot.
Yet, the US and Israel are likely to secure deployment of
peacekeepers. Timothy Garton Ash observed that its less clear what that
involvement should be. One proposal is for European forces to participate in
a multinational peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, but that only
makes sense if realistic parameters are established for a clear, feasible
and finite mission. Those are not yet in sight. Even a ceasefire is not yet in
sight.
The Rome summit concluded yesterday afternoon barely papering
over a clear difference between the US and Israel, on the one side, and most
of the rest of the world, including the EU and the UN, on the other, about
how a ceasefire should be achieved. The truth is that now, more than ever,
the diplomatic key lies in the full engagement of the United States, using its
unique influence with Israel and negotiating as directly as possible with all
partners to the conflict, however unsavory.
Some of the impacts desired by the aggressor seemed unachievable.
Rashid I Khalidi wrote, there will be no destruction of Hezbollah, and
no uprooting of its infrastructure or that of Hamas, whatever the results
of Israels siege of Gaza and its merciless attacks against Lebanon. The
rhetoric about terrorism has mesmerized those who parrot it, blinding them
to the fact that Hezbollah and Hamas are deeply rooted popular movements
that have developed as a response to occupation
665

The Lebanese government will not do Israels bidding in south

Lebanon. The deep divisions in Lebanon over Hezbollahs military
presence before Israels blitz began are rapidly disappearing. Prime
Minister Fouad Siniora, Lebanese Speaker Nabi Berri, Saad Hariri (son of
assassinated Prime Minister Rafik Hariri), Gen Michel Aoun, President
and other major leaders of the country of all sects and all political
persuasions and Lebanese public opinion have been horrified at Israels
ravaging of their countrys infrastructure and its defenceless civilian
population, yet again.
Iran and Syria, Hezbollahs principal allies, will not come out of
this conflict weaker, even if it develops into a regional war involving either.
The United States has been threatening both for several years, since 9/11
released the cowboy in George W Bush. Their positions have been
strengthened by the bulldozer-like obtuseness of US policy on Hamas and
Hezbollah, never more so than since Israel fell into Hezbollahs trap and
overreacted to the capture of two of its soldiers
The pro-American Arab regimes that initially foolishly aligned
themselves with the United States and Israel over the Lebanese crisis have
shown their regret by back-pedaling as fast as they can. Public opinion in
their countries is massively against their position
Israels regional power decreases when it escalates the use of
force against Palestinians and Lebanese. This has been the case for the last
couple of decadesand it will happen again. The United States has
discovered the same thingas the use of massive force in Iraq has produced
a similarly massive weakening of the US position throughout the Middle
East.
This war has signified the importance of non-state groups in
defence of the weaker nations when pitched against adversaries having
superior conventional military means. No Muslim country, including the one
having the dirty bomb, has the capability to withstand the Crusaders hightech conventional onslaught. And, there should be no doubt that every
Muslim country is the potential target of the Crusaders in their Long War,
unless of course they exhibit doormat-like submission.
The performance of Hezbollah and Hamas has proved that the armed
forces trained to fight conventional wars, particularly against the Crusaders,
in Muslim countries will not be effective. Therefore, those countries which
still long for self-respect must lay greater emphasis on training their
ground forces for unconventional warfare, establish the required
666

infrastructure, and mentally prepare the nation to support them in their longdrawn resistance against occupations.

CONCLUSION
Israels security fears and subsequent actions are similar to that of a
burglar. It initiated the moves to steel Palestinians land, having committed
the theft, it constantly fears dispossession. The desire to retain illegal
possession results in commission of more excesses.
Shiites, one fifth of Lebanons population, have boosted the
confidence of a small nation by resisting the aggressor like no Arab has done
in recent history. This was amply reflected when Lebanese Government told
Rice to stay away from labour room where she wanted to deliver a baby
named New Middle East.
In fact, she came on assessment tour; to get feed back on the progress
and impact of Israeli offensive. In Tel Aviv, she was briefed by Olmert about
the time and logistic support required by him to accomplish the task in hand.
After finding out that Israel would require time much longer than estimated,
she went to Rome to block an early ceasefire.
As the Crusaders rushed arms and ammunition to Israel, Muslims sent
humanitarian aid to Lebanon. This explained the cause of all the trouble in
Middle East and Muslim World. Had they been mindful of their
responsibilities, it would have been other way round.
Muslim rulers claimed to be wise as they were acting according to the
ground realities. The real leaders create ground realities, as the Crusaders
have been doing. The war however could mark the beginning of
reawakening of Muslim masses; just as Muslim media, particularly Pakistani
electronic media, came of age in reporting from battlefield.
As militia of few thousands bravely battled against the ZionistsCrusaders Axis, Pakistans Foreign Minister lacked the courage even to think
of unrealistic statement about military response. He must be contemplating
about flying to Tel Aviv, not asking for a ceasefire, but to show solidarity
with Israel to earn heaps of praise from the Crusaders.

6th August 2006

667

PHASE III WEEK IV

Israeli commandos struck deep into Lebanon in heli-borne raid and
captured five fighters on 2nd August. Hezbollah fired 190 rockets, the highest
number in a day, into Israel as deep as 60 km; one person was killed and 19
wounded. Seven Lebanese were killed in Israeli bombardment bringing the
toll to 850 killed and more than 3,200 wounded.
EU said Israel has no right to destroy Lebanon. UNSC resolution on
Lebanon was delayed due to differences between US and France. Russia
said UN was weakened by Bush support to Olmert. Khamenei urged
Muslims to resist against Zionists. Thousands of Shiites marched in Baghdad
without renouncing their collaboration with the US in Iraq.
Next day, eight Israelis died in Hezbollahs missile attack and three
soldiers were killed in fighting. Eleven Lebanese were killed in Israeli
attacks and eight Palestinians were killed in Gaza. Israel claimed securing
area up to six km which included 20 villages. Jewish radicals tried to enter
al-Aqsa mosque.
Syria promised to use all its influence on Hezbollah. Nasrallah vowed
to continue fight against Israel to last bullet. He vowed to attack Tel Aviv
each time Israel bombed Beirut, rocket attacks will be halted if Israel stops
bombing Beirut.
OIC condemned relentless Israeli aggression; demanded immediate
and comprehensive ceasefire; urged release of Lebanese and Palestinian
668

prisoners; expressed anger over blatant and flagrant violations of human

rights; and demanded that Israel be held accountable for all its actions.
Ahmadinejad said the road to peace in the region leads through destruction
of Israel.
Human Rights Watch asked Israel to end war crimes. Western
media/internet outlets termed pictures of Qana massacre as fake. Prospects
of ceasefire faded due to difference on various aspects. These differences
will evaporate once Israel nods in affirmative.
On 4th August, about 150 air strikes were carried out. All major roads
and important bridges were destroyed, including routes of aid supply leading
out of Syria. About 40 Lebanese civilians were killed, including 33 fruit
farm workers in a farm near Qaa in Bekka Valley; and 20 others were
wounded. Hezbollah claimed killing ten Israeli soldiers in fighting. Four
Palestinians were killed in Gaza.
Siniora said, Hezbollah will dissolve when the problems which led to
its creation no longer exist. Lets confront the question of land usurped by
others that belongs to Lebanon. When asked directly about the Shebaa
Farms area, he said, for decades we have claimed the land which belongs to
us. Begin restitution and you will see tensions diminish. The US and France
kept buying time for Israel pretending to carve out a UN resolution for
ceasefire.
Tens of thousands marched through Baghdad in a rally organized by
Moqtada Sadr in protest against Israeli attack on Lebanon. Before the march,
flags of Israel and the US were painted on the ground for people to stampede
on. Protest rallies were held in Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur. In Tehran, the
British embassy was pelted with petrol bombs and stones by the protesters.
Pakistans National Assembly condemned Israeli aggression.
Next day, three Israeli were killed and five wounded in the Galilee
region due Hezbollahs rocket fire. Fighters claimed killing two Israeli
soldiers. Israel told residents of Sidon to leave or be bombed. Lebanon
sought emergency oil supplies from Turkey.
US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch discussed draft
resolution with Siniora and said that the solution lay in a lasting political
framework backed by an international force. France and the US agreed on
draft resolution which did not demand ceasefire but end to hostilities while
granting Israel the right to retaliate.

669

Annan reiterated the call for ceasefire. Only 46% Americans rejected
Bushs handling of Mideast conflict. More than 100 jihadis vowed to attack
Israeli targets. Malaysia rejected dialogue with Israel.
On 6th August, Israelis suffered heaviest losses due to Hezbollahs
rocket attacks; 12 Israeli reservists were killed and 20 wounded. Three
Israelis were killed and 65 wounded in similar attack on Haifa. Two Israeli
soldiers were killed and 21 wounded in fighting. Israeli toll reached 94,
including 58 soldiers.
Nineteen Lebanese were killed in Israeli air strikes. Three UN
observers of China were wounded. Lebanese civilian deaths were over 950.
Speaker of Palestinian parliament was kidnapped by Israelis and one
Palestinian was killed in Gaza. Palestinian toll reached 167.
At least two Israeli fighter pilots were reported deliberately missing
civilian targets as disquiet grew in the military about flawed intelligence.
The report could be an attempt to project humanitarian image of the
Israelis. The Observer reported, voices expressing concern over the armed
forces failure are getting louder. One Israeli cabinet minister said last week:
We gave the army so much money. Why are we getting these results?
Lebanon rejected draft UN Resolution, which favoured Israel and
ignored Beiruts seven-point plan calling for ceasefire. Iran rejected US
mediation in Middle East fighting, because the country is party to conflict.
Syrian Foreign Minister said his country was ready for war if attacked.
Next day, more than fifty Lebanese were killed in air strikes. Fourteen
Hezbollah fighters and seven Israeli soldiers were killed in fighting. Seven
persons were hospitalized after they opened a suspicious envelope addressed
to Palestinian Prime Minister Is mail Hanieyah. The envelope contained an
orange tissue that emitted a strong smell. Lebanon faced cute oil, food and
water shortage. Israel warned that offensive to cripple Hezbollah would
continue regardless of any ceasefire negotiated at the UN.
Arab foreign ministers flocked to Beirut to show solidarity with
Lebanon. Siniora addressed them with tearful eyes and the Arab leaders
clapped. The august gathering failed to make any move against Israel but
supported Lebanons seven-point plan. Siniora appealed for ceasefire.
The US pressed for adoption of resolution by UNSC, but others were
hesitant. Fierce anti-US protests erupted in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait all
close allies of America. Protesters vented their anger against rulers and
praised Nasrallah. Musharraf called for immediate ceasefire.

670

On 8th August, five Israeli soldiers and 15 Hezbollah fighters were

killed in fighting and 36 Lebanese were killed in air strikes. Dozens more
Hezbollah rockets landed in Israel. Israel vowed to expand military offensive
and imposed night time restriction of vehicular movement in southern
Lebanon to check movement of rockets and rocket launchers.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in her speech to parliament told
Siniora to wipe his tears and to begin acting in order to produce a better
futurefirst of all for the victims for whom he cries. Lebanese government
decided to send 15,000 soldiers to the south and Olmert termed it an
interesting move.
Arab delegation pressed UN for Israeli withdrawal. The US rejected
Lebanese demand of immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops. Blair said
resolution in UNSC will be voted after 9 th August. Russia said the draft that
is not favourable to the Lebanese side should not be adopted.
By the end of fourth week, it seemed quite clearly that the war would
end in a stalemate. With that the ceasefire became a possibility as Israel and
its backers could not afford fighting a protracted war. The analysts stepped
up criticism of the aggressor and its supporters.

AGGRESSION
The current Israeli aggression is no war. Its is an act of serial
brutalities aimed at nothing but perpetration of death and destruction. John
Pilger wrote, before our eyes, the Israeli regime, armed and bankrolled by
the United States, and backed by Britain, is set upon destroying an entire
country, deliberately killing civilians, almost half of whom are children; and
the crusaders are as quiet as mice or they are busy toiling in the great quarry
of obfuscation.
How was it possible for Rice to achieve her mission when the
unabashed mission of her government was to aggressively back and collude
with the Israelis, even supplying them in mid-slaughter with precision
guided bombs and uranium tipped missiles?
In my experience of war and the Middle East, the Israeli army is one
of the most craven. Every day its soldiers humiliate defenceless, frightened
old people and pregnant women at roadblocks and now its F-16 pilots drop
phosphorous bombs on families fleeing in rickety vans.

671

Jonathan Cook said, HRWs executive director, Kenneth Roth,

blames Israel for targeting civilians indiscriminately in Lebanon. The
pattern of attacks shows the Israeli militarys disturbing disregard for
the lives of Lebanese civilians. Our research shows that Israels claim that
Hezbollah fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone
justify, Israels indiscriminate warfare.
Giving the lie to the human shields theory, HRW says its
researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and
air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian
cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent
military target. In some instances, they appear to have deliberately targeted
civilians.
In fact, of the 24 incidents they document, HRW researchers could
find no evidence that Hezbollah was operating in or near the areas that were
attacked by the Israeli air force. Roth states: The image that Israel has
promoted of such (human) shielding as the cause of so high a civilian
death toll is wrong
The impression that Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields has
been reinforced, according to HRW, by official Israeli statements that have
blurred the distinction between civilians and combatants, arguing that
only people associated with Hezbollah remain in southern Lebanon, so all
are legitimate targets of attack.
Egeland and Freedlands criticism seems to amount to little more
than blaming Hezbollah fighters for not standing in open fields waiting to be
picked off by Israeli tanks and war planes. That, presumably, would be
brave. But in reality no army fights in this way, and Hezbollah can hardly
be criticized for using the only strategic defences it has: its underground
bunkers and the crumbling fortifications of Lebanese villages ruined by
Israeli pounding.
So if Israeli officials have been deceiving us about what has been
occurring inside Lebanon, have they also been misleading us about
Hezbollahs rocket attacks on Israel? The analysts quoted the evidence that
Israel has intentionally located many of its military establishments close
to civilian residential areas; mostly inhabited by Arabs.
Robert Fisk wrote, the Israelis claimed that helicopter-borne soldiers
had seized senior Hezbollah leaders, although one of them turned out to be
a local Baalbek grocer who was taken as Hezbollahs boss because his
name was Hassan Nasrallah.
672

The Israelis sent paratroopers to attack an Iranian-financed hospital

in Baalbek in the hope of capturing wounded Hezbollah fighters but, after an
hours battle, got their hands on only five men whom the Israeli Prime
Minister, Ehud Olmert, later called tasty fish.
Israels policy of coercion is wrong in many ways. Eric S Margolis
observed: Israels old Lebanese curse just keeps getting worse. A number of
respected press agencies have reported the skirmish that triggered this war
didnt occur in Israel, as Israel claims, but just inside Lebanon. If true, this
would sink Israel deeper into the hole it has already dug itself.
Israel first claimed it was targeting missile launchers firing from
Qana. But Israels military now admits there were no rockets being fired
from Qana the day of attack US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
looked even more pathetic than usual after proclaiming a temporary
humanitarian ceasefire in Lebanon which Israel promptly ignored. She
deserved to be fired.
Israels latest plan: occupy and depopulate a 20-mile deep chunk of
Lebanon to the Litani River until an international force comes in and
subdues what is left of Hezbollah. This clearly amounts to ethnic
cleansing.
The deeper Israel advances into Lebanon, the more its troops are
exposed to Hezbollah attack. Bombing and shelling wont defeat
Hezbollah, which represents a third of Lebanons people and is its de facto
army. Eighty-seven percent of Lebanese now back Hezbollah. So far, the
war has badly backfired for Israel.
John Wiener quoted Sternhell. Israel today he wrote in Haaretz
July 28, is dominated by thinking even more primitive than the
thinking that led Ariel Sharon to Beirut about a quarter of a century ago.
He explained that it is impossible to uproot Hezbollah from among the
Shiites without destroying the population itselfwell-organized armies
equipped with modern technology have always failed in attempts to defeat
irregular forces. The latter know-how to adapt themselves to the
surroundings, they are an inseparable part of the population and the serve its
material, religious and emotional needs.
Sternhell went further than other critics in linking Isarels war to the
White House. George Bush, he wrote, wants Israel both to destroy Lebanon
and to sustain painful losses. That way, Israel provides him with an excellent
alibi for the war in Iraq: The fight against terror is global, the blood price is
the same, the methods of operation and the means are identical, and the time
673

needed for victory is long. His conclusion: The Israeli vassal is serving its
master no less that the master is providing for its needs.
David Ignatius opined that Israelis will have to revise their
doctrine that their adversaries can be coerced solely by military force. As
Gad Luft, a retired military officer, commented at a conference in
Washington last week, the days are long past when Arab fighters would see
the advancing Israeli army, discard their boots and flee in terror.
The strategy of Israels (and Americas) enemies today is to lure the
military superpower into a protracted conflict. To accept the bait, as the
Israelis did in assaulting Lebanon and as America did in Iraq, is to risk
stepping into a trap.
The Israeli and American resolve in this grim summer of war should
be: No more falling into traps. In the age of missiles, theres limited value
in a security fence or security buffer. The evidence grows that you
cant achieve real security without negotiating with your adversaries, and
you cant succeed in such negotiations without offering reasonable
concessions.
Arab News talked of the forgotten front of the war. Lost in the
terrible news of Israels war against Lebanon is Israels other battlefront
the Palestinians in Gaza. While the world has been looking toward Lebanon,
Israel has taken the opportunity to run amok in Gaza.
Gazans have to deal with two serious problems the Israeli
military assault and their own growing economic crisis. Three-quarters of
Gazas population was already living in poverty after international aid dried
up in protest against Hamas political victory. Since the fighting in Lebanon
began, the situation has worsened.
As is the case with Hezbollah, it isnt clear what impact Israels
campaign is having on Palestinian activists groups. What we do know is that
Qassam rockets keep landing in Israels southernmost towns, just as
Hezbollahs Katyushas create their own havoc in Israels north.
Israels intended message is quite different. It is waiting until its
current rampage in Lebanon ends before tackling the matter of the abducted
soldier in Gaza, hopeful that victory over Hezbollah, however that is defined
from the Israeli perspective, will enable it to dictate the corporals release
without being obliged to release Palestinian prisoners. A decimated
Hezbollah and the wholesale destruction of Lebanon, Israel wants to show
the world, that is what happens when its soldiers are abducted.

674

Lebanon and Gaza are in the same situation. More of their

children than fighters are being killed, and not a finger from the international
community, in terms of individual countries or a collective UN effort, has
been lifted to help. Yet they are not identical. Unlike the Lebanese, Gazans
are not waiting for a UN ceasefire resolution stopping Israels criminality.
Gulf News wrote, Gaza is being pulverized just as Lebanon is. Yet
the United Nations Security Council is being shamefully silent about events
in Gaza. The Palestinian people elected Hamas to be their government and
while Israel may find this disagreeable; it gives them no right to unleash a
reign of terror on Gaza.
Two articles of Uri Avnery amply explain various aspects of Israeli
aggression. In first article he wrote, the day after the war will be the Day
of the Long Knives. Everybody will blame everybody else. The politicians
will blame each other. The generals will blame each other. The politicians
will blame the generals. And, most of all, the generals will blame the
politicians.
Always, in every country and after every war, when the generals
fail, the knife in the back legend raises its head; if only the politicians
had not stopped the army just when it was on the point of achieving a
glorious, crushing, historic victory.
The same army that took just six days to rout three big Arab
armies in 1967 has not succeeded in overcoming a small terrorist
organization in a time span that is already longer than the momentous Yom
Kippur War According to correspondents, President Bush is frustrated.
The Israeli army has not delivered the goods. Bush sent them into war
believing that the powerful army, equipped with the most advanced
American arms, will finish the job in a few days. It was supposed to
eliminate Hezbollah, turn Lebanon over to the stooges of the US, weaken
Iran and perhaps also open the way to regime change in Syria. No wonder
that Bush is angry.
Ehud Olmert is even more furious. He went to war in high spirits and
with a light heart, because the Air Force generals had promised to destroy
Hezbollah and their rockets within a few days. Now he is stuck in the mud,
and no victory in sight.
The commanders of the land army blame the Chief-of-Staff and the
power intoxicated Air Force, who promised to achieve victory all by
themselves. To bomb, bomb and bomb, destroy roads, bridges,
residential quarters and villages, and finito!
675

The followers of the Chief-of-Staff and the other Air Force

generals will blame the land forces, and especially the Northern
Command. Their spokesmen in the media already declare that this command
is full of inept officers, who have been shunted there because the North
seemed a back-water while the real action was going on in the South (Gaza)
and the Centre (west Bank).
The mutual accusations are all quite right They are rooted in
the terrible arrogance in which we were brought up and which has become
a part of our national character. It is even more typical of the army, and
reaches its climax in the Air Force.
One of the declared aims of this war was the rehabilitation of the
Israeli armys deterrence power. That really has not happened. Thats
because the other side of the coin of arrogance is the profound contempt for
Arabs, an attitude that has already led to severe military failures in the past.
But beyond arrogance and contempt of the opponent, there is a
basic military problem: it is just impossible to win a war against Guerrillas.
We have seen this in our 18-year stay in Lebanon. Then we drew the
unavoidable conclusion and got out.
God knows what gave todays generals the unfounded selfconfidence to believe that they would win where their predecessors failed
so miserably. And most of all: even the best army in the world cannot win a
war that has no clear aim.
Military experts say that in order to succeed in war, there must be (a)
a clear aim, (b) an aim that is achievable, and (c) the means necessary for
achieving this aim. All these three conditions are lacking in this war. That
is clearly the fault of the political leadership And so, like two village
idiots, to the sound of drums and bugles, they set off at they head of their
March of Folly straight towards political and military failure. It is reasonable
to assume that they will pay the price What will come out of this whole
mess? No one talks anymore about eliminating Hezbollah or disarming it
and destroying all the rockets. That has been forgotten long ago.
At the start of the war, the government furiously rejected the idea of
deploying an international force of any kind along the border. The army
believed that such a force would not protect Israel, but only restrict its
freedom of action. Now, suddenly, the deployment of this force has
become the main aim of the campaign.

676

That is, of course, a sorry alibi, a ladder for getting down from the
high tree. The international force can be deployed only in agreement with
Hezbollah. No country will send its soldiers to a place where they would
have to fight the locals Further on, the force will also be totally dependent
on the agreement of Hezbollah. If a bomb explodes under a bus full of
French soldiers, a cry will be up in Paris: bring our sons home. That is what
happened when the US Marines were bombed in Beirut.
In the second article he wrote, hard as it is to imagine, it seems that
Olmert really believes that this is a successful war. That he is winning.
That he has radically changed Israels situation. That he is building a New
Middle East. That he is a historic leader, far superior to Ariel Sharon (who,
after all, was beaten in Lebanon and who allowed Hezbollah to build up its
arsenal of rockets). That the longer he is allowed to go on with the war, the
more his stature in history will grow.
Of all the dangers facing Israel now, this is the most severe. Because
this man is deciding, quite simply, the fate of millions: who will die, who
will become a refugee, whose world will be shattered. But Olmerts
problem with megalomania is nothing compared to what has happened
to Amir Peretz.
While the Prime Minister is afraid of continuing to advance, fearing
that too many casualties from rockets and the battle on the ground might
cloud the brilliance of his victory, Peretz wants to reach the Litani River,
whatever the cost. Theres no other way if one wants to become Prime
Minister, one has to walk over dead bodies.
Today, the 25th day of the war, we can draw up an interim
balance. What were the aims? What are the results?
To destroy Hezbollah: Who would have believed it, but on the 25 th
day Hezbollah is still standing and fighting.
To weaken Hezbollah: That is a watered down version of the first
aim. It is more convenient, because it cannot be measured. After all in
any war both sides are weakened.
To push Hezbollah away from the border: That is the crumpled aim,
after the two preceding ones were shown to be unattainable. It, too,
has not been realized yet, and never will be, because it is also
unattainable.

677

 To kill Hassan Nasrallah: For the time being, so it seems, the report
of the death was an exaggeration In the meantime, the original
Nasrallah is flourishing.
To return to the Israeli army the power of deterrence: This war proves
that it is not capable of achieving a military decision against an able
guerrilla organization with determined fighters the war has harmed
the security of Israel. It has proved that the Israeli rear is exposed

RESISTANCE
Israel may dominate Washington, but is having a far tougher time
with Lebanon. In a little Thermopylae, Hezbollahs 3,000 fighters
astoundingly held off Israels mighty military machine, the worlds fourth
strongest, for three weeks. Not bad for what Israel calls a bunch of
terrorists. Many Israelis are now questioning the invasions logic and
objective, observed Eric S Margolis.
John Pilger said, no resistance is petty; that each adds its own form
of violence in order to expel an invader (such as the civilians killed by
Hezbollah rockets); and this has applied to heroic partisans in Europe and
heroic Kurds and those faceless, despised Iraqis who have succeeded in
pinning down the American homicidal machine in their country.
But there is hope. After all these years of terrorizing an occupied
people, eventually driving them to the despair of having to commit their own
atrocities, the rogue regimes in Washington and Tel Aviv may, backed by
Blairjust may, have met their match; or if not the whole match, the
beginning of it.
Sami Moubayed was of the view that Nasrallah has outgrown his
Shiite identity and transformed himself into a pan-Lebanese, pan-Arab
and pan-Islamic leader. The fact that he is a cleric, a Muslim and a Shiite is
actually of little importance at this stage of his war with Israel.
He opined that there are three Lebanons within the known
Lebanon, each with its own history, objectives, alliances and leaders.
Shiite Lebanon is Hezbollahs Lebanon. It is the epicentre of anti-Israeli
rhetoric and action; shared by the Amal movement of Nabi Berri.
In the 1960s, this Lebanon used to receive no more than 0.7% of the
state budget for public works and hospitalization, while the other two
Lebanons were being described as the Switzerland of the East This is the
678

non-alcohol Lebanon, Lebanon of veiled women, bearded men, povertystricken districts and iniquitous posters of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, the
late leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.
This is the Lebanon we see on Hezbollahs al-Manar TV. This
Lebanon is anti-American and anti-Israeli to the bone. Many here, Nasrallah
included, speak fluent English, but prefer to converse, think and write in
Arabic. French culture in this Lebanon is minimal.
Many hundreds of families in Shiite Lebanon live off monthly
stipends delivered to their homes at the start of every month, in a sealed
envelope, from the secretary general of Hezbollah. The families of the
wounded, the arrested in Israeli jails and those who died in combat receive
free education and hospitalization, at the expense of Hezbollah.
This is the Lebanon that is being targeted by Israel. For the reasons
mentioned above, among others, it will be difficult if not impossible to
turn the tables against Hezbollah and Nasrallah in their Lebanon. Simply
put, Nasrallah is the king in his Lebanon. Disarming him by force would be
impossible.
Another Lebanon is that of the Sunni Muslims, headed for 13
years by the towering influence of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who
was assassinated in February 2005. It is now under the command of his son,
Saad, and Prime Minister Siniora, two US-educated politicians who value
liberal economies, open society, and fine secular education.
This is the Lebanon where both pan-Arab and Anglo-Saxon influences
are very strong. Its residents speak and understand perfect English, and use it
comfortably with Arabic. It is the Lebanon of fine food, good wine, beautiful
women, shopping, beaches and pleasure.
This is a Lebanon historically allied to Syria. Its leaders in the 1930s
and 1940s saw themselves as closer to Damascus and their co-religionists in
Syria than they were to the Christians of Mount Lebanon. They originally
wanted to reunite with Syria, the motherland, but by the late 1930s had
abandoned this idea in favour of being part of Greater Lebanon, on the
condition that they be treated as equal to the Christians.
This Lebanon broke with Syria after Hariris assassination. Its
leaders, one time allies of Damascus, turned against Syria when it became
unpopular to be pro-Syrian, accusing the Syrians of murdering Hariri.
Unlike Nasrallahs united Lebanon, however, this Lebanon is sharply
divided. One side is headed by Saad Hariri. It is anti-Syrian, pro-Saudi
679

Arabian and pro-West. The other is headed by former traditional Sunni

notables (especially Beiruti) who were sidelined by the rise of Rafik
Hariri They are pro-Syrian They believe that Syrian influence has been
traded for that of the United States.
The Americans promised the pro-Syrian leaders of Lebanon
democracy, prosperity and stability. Instead, they have given them war and
bombs, tolerating and then fanning the current war in order to break
Hezbollah.
Hariris Lebanon the one we see on Future TV (Hariris station)
dreads the spread of Iranian influence in the Arab World. An anti-Hariri team
does exist, but it has terrible public relations
Christian Lebanon is the Lebanon that was once dominant, from
the post-Ottoman era until the end of the civil war in 1990. This is the
Lebanon that has preserved the sophistication and democracy of Lebanon. It
opposed Muslim hegemony in the 1950s and 1960s; refusing to make
Lebanon a revolutionary nation inspired by the rebelliousness, socialism and
anti-Westernism of Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.
This Lebanon is influenced tremendously by France. Some of its
residents are more comfortable with French than Arabic. Some refuse to
learn English to preserve their Franco-Lebanese culture.
This Lebanon is currently headed by the ex-warlord Samir Gagegea,
who was recently released from jail, and the former army commander,
Michel Aoun. When Aoun allied himself to Nasrallah sending shock waves
throughout Christian Lebanon many said this was political suicide
Aoun, however, understood that Lebanon had changed, knowing perfectly
well that Christian support alone was no longer enough to secure a seat for
him at the Baadba presidential palace.
Israel is trying to turn the tables in Lebanon against the Shiites. It
wants the Christians to suffer from the Israeli war, and blame Nasrallah for
having dragged Lebanon into this confrontation. That is why it has landed
bombs in Christian Lebanon
The anti-Hezbollah factions from Christian and Sunni Lebanon say
Nasrallah does not have the right to dictate the fate of Lebanon as a country
destined to be at war with Israel. This is said by Hariris and Gagegeas
Lebanon They say Nasrallah is a creation of Iran and Syria, fighting their
proxy war with Israel through Lebanon at the expense of the Lebanese. This

680

war, they argue, has cost Lebanon a staggering sum of US $ 9 billion to

date.
How he (Nasrallah) sees Lebanon is very different from how the
Sunnis or Christians see it. He certainly has never been to tourist attractions
in the Lebanese mountains or beach Nasrallah probably does not suffer
when he sees Beirut in blackout and in a grinding economic standstill To
Nasrallah, it just means the normal and expected task of combating the
Israelis is under way. As much as Israel, these three Lebanons will decide the
fate of the country.
Out of the three Lebanons, only Hezbollahs Lebanon is resisting the
aggression and that is why the civilized world is pressing for its disarming.
Kaunain Shah from Peshawar warned, the Lebanese government and its
Muslim neighbours should realize that with the disarming of Hezbollah,
Lebanon would be more vulnerable to Israel. It is Israels aim to
annihilate Hezbollah, so that the confrontation with the Lebanese army in
case of a war would be a walk over.
Sahibzada Yunas Jan from Islamabad saw the brighter side of the
emerging picture. Let us assume Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, still, I
wonder if it is a war against terror or for terror. Every Lebanese,
irrespective of religion, has become a supporter of Hezbollah, directly or
indirectly. And at the end of the day Israels aggression against Lebanon will
have turned every Lebanese into a member of Hezbollah. America is playing
a dirty game regarding their global war on terror.
Jonathan Steele observed, Hezbollah will emerge stronger in the
Lebanese balance of political force, but not overwhelmingly so, and perhaps
only for a short time. Tyre, for example, is run by Hezbollahs forerunner,
the Amal party Its military success in getting Israel out to end its previous
occupation in 2000 did not transfer to the ballot box.
Hezbollahs fierce resistance to Israeli ground troops has won it
new admirers across the Lebanese spectrum, but in the villages civilians
saw little evidence of Hezbollah helping the displacedthough they could
be seen standing about in wary groups in the less ruined towns.
In the wider Arab World this is irrelevant detail. Hezbollah is
already the hero, a desperately longed-for proof of success. However this
war ends, Israels image of invincibility has gone. Of course, the same was
said in October 1973 in the hours after Egyptian troops crossed the Suez
Canal. Surprisingly the Israeli army, days later, regained the upper hand.

681

No such tide-turning will happen this time. Even if Israel were to kill
or capture Hezbollahs leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, and destroy every
Hezbollah rocket store, Hezbollah has won by holding out for three weeks
and inflicting serious disruption and pain on Israel.
The analyst could not resist making an attempt to arouse ShiaSunni rift. Can Hezbollahs victory in Lebanon be the harbinger of other
Arab victories to come? Unlikely Hezbollahs victory may do less damage
to Israel than to other Arab regimes. The success of Shia insurgency will
encourage other Shias around the region, including those in Saudi Arabia.
Hezbollahs appeal across the Arab World is a wider matter of
Islamism and the struggle against corrupt despotism. Egypt and, to a lesser
extent, Jordan and even in the medium term Syria, which has backed and
armed Hezbollah will feel the shockwaves running through the Arab
street.
Robert Pape said, Israel has finally conceded that air power alone
will not defeat Hezbollah. Over the coming weeks, it will learn that ground
power wont work either. The problem is not that the Israelis have
insufficient military might, but that they misunderstand the nature of the
enemy.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Hezbollah is principally neither
a political party nor an Islamist militia. It is a broad movement that
evolved in reaction to Israels invasion of Lebanon in June 1982. At first, it
consisted of a small number of Shias supported by Iran. But as more and
more Lebanese came to resent Israels occupation, Hezbollah, never tightknit, expanded into an umbrella organization that tacitly coordinated the
resistance operations of a loose collection of groups with a variety of
religious and secular aims.
The new Israeli land offensive may take ground and destroy
weapons, but it has little chance of destroying Hezbollah. In fact, in the
wake of the bombings of civilians, the incursion will probably aid
Hezbollahs recruiting Israel must take the initiative. Unless it calls off
the offensive and accepts a genuine ceasefire, there are likely to be many,
many dead Israelis in the coming weeks and a much stronger Hezbollah.
Israel Shamir wrote, Bishop Philip of Antioch compared the leveling
of this small Lebanese town with the destruction of Stalingrad, but these
cities are also comparable by courage of their defenders. Seldom is a
generation able to witness such a shining example of valor: for three long
weeks a handful of Hezbollah warriors two thousand by the most
682

optimistic count fought to standstill ten, twenty, thirty times more

numerous Israeli troops. Forty years ago, Israelis defeated three armies in
one week, but now the invaders charm has worn off, or it has passed over to
the vanquished.
They were cock sure they could devour Gaza at will. And indeed,
everybody kept mum. The Jews felt secure as they stooped to finish off
Gaza: Who would disturb the lion of Judah roaring at his prey? And a tiny
force from the Mount of Lebanon said: we will. The Israeli army roused
from its prey turned north and lashed with all its might at the Hezbollah
fighters. But they stood fast.
This was most unexpected. The Israelis were used to killing or
dispersing weaponless untrained Palestinians. Instead, the fighters of
Nasrallah dug their heels into the bare hills of Bint Jbeil and gave battle. If
they were destroyed quickly, Israeli generals would lead their victorious
troops to Damascus and Tehran before turning back and despoiling Palestine
of its priceless jewel, Haram Sharif. It still could happen, but the chances
were diminished by the steadfastness of Hezbollah.
More importantly, Hezbollah refused to ceasefire as long as Israel
occupies the land of Lebanon. This daring step undermined the whole
strategy of Zionists. They planned to occupy the south and wait there until
an international (or NATO) force entered to do their job for them.
Hezbollahs decision lacks one detail: Any ceasefire must extend to
Palestine, as well. It is inconceivable that Lebanon will lay down its arms,
while Gaza is besieged and Nablus ravished.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: We have changed the
Middle East. I do not know whether all the Middle East has changed, but in
Israel we witness a great change. Until now, only a few just men and women
of Israel called their government to desist in their aggression against Gaza
and Lebanon. But the Katyusha rain changed minds of many They have
begun to understand that time is not on their side.
Neil MacFarquhar reports the tide of public opinion across the
Arab World is surging behind the organization, transforming the Shiite
groups leader, Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and forcing a change in
official statements.
The cruel bombardment of Beirut and of all Lebanon was supposed
to frighten the Arab nations into obedience; instead, it convinced the
rich and powerful Arabs that as long as the Jews run the writ in the Middle

683

East, their own riches and power can be taken from them anytime by will of
a Jewish general.
Indeed, the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem existed longer than the
Jewish state, and probably would have lasted for centuries, but for its innate
aggressiveness and its preparedness to serve as bridgehead for European
invasions In our time the US pays heavily for Israels wars. A poor
American may hate to think about the fact that while he has no medical
insurance, his government has to pay tribute to rich Israel An American
politician, maybe even an American president, may get tired by the
Jewish lobbys endless need to demand sympathy
Abdel-Moneim wrote about the man behind Hezbollah. Hassan
Nasrallah impressed me greatly the one and only time I met him, in February
2000. He represented a new brand of Arab revolutionary, a definite change
from the long and tedious run of pan-Arabists and Nasserites.
He went onto explain the circumstances which kept on producing
revolutionaries of various shades. In general, Arab politicians fall into one
of two categories. The first is made up of those who accept the local,
regional or international rules of the game and existing balances of power.
They see themselves as players whose task it is to further the interests of
their people and themselves in accordance with established norms. In
general, they are averse to the use of arms and have little faith in the masses.
They also hate surprises.
The other category consists of revolutionary leaders. Whether
sincere in their beliefs or not, they reject the rules of the game and the given
balances of power and turn them upside-down. The place great faith in
military action and the role of the masses in shaping history, and they
believe that the shocks and jolts of revolution provide the jump-starts that
drive history forward by qualitative leaps and bounds.
The Arab World has known three generations of revolutionary
leaders over the past century. During the early 20th century, there appeared
the first luminaries The second generation stormed onto the stage on
horseback or on the backs of tanks following the 20th centurys midway
point. This was the era of officers coups and armed rebellions
With the last quarter of the 20 th century, the second generation began
to die out, either by natural causes or by other coups for the most part
succeeded by realist leaderships who essentially held that revolution, such
as that which had created the circumstances that led to their rise to power,
was not the wisest policy. Still, the door remained open to a new generation
684

of revolutionaries who began to appear in 1990s, brandishing the banners of

Islam and the Muslim nation extending from the Pacific to the Atlantic.
But as seemingly diverse as they appear in means and method, they
unite in their belief that Islam is the prime impetus of their revolution. I
will never forget the answer Nasrallah gave me when, six years ago, I asked
him why he had included the name of God as part of the name of his
political party, Hezbollah Nasrallah responded that the aim of the
members of his party was to die (the use of the term martyrdom came at a
later stage) and that neither Lebanon nor the Arab nation was sufficient
cause to make this supreme sacrifice, which only the service of God could
command.
Another factor that the third generation has in common is their belief
in the Iranian revolution as the cornerstone of the contemporary Islamic
revolution. Despite the Shia character of Irans Islamic revolutionary
regime, Osama Bin Laden had no objection to letting Iran fill the second
rank of al-Qaeda leaders. Nor did Khaled Meshal have a problem with
befriending Hassan Nasrallah in Tehran.
The three generations of revolutionaries differ in many matters, most
of which determined by the varying conditions and requirements of their
times and circumstances. However, they have one major characteristic in
common: they all throw down the gauntlet to the West, be it the West of
direct colonialism, the West of indirect hegemony or the West at the centre
of rampant globalization. In a sense, their confrontation, unlike that of other
revolutionary leaders of the world, always tended to bear a stamp of the
clash over the rights of existence, as opposed to the boundaries of vying
claims and interests.
Herein, perhaps, resides Achilles heel of all Arab revolutionary
movements and their revolutionary leaders. In all events, their revolutions
are carried on fragile backs, short on education, imagination and economic
and military catchwords, slogans and other revolutionary rhetoric garrulity,
across the pages of the national press, the airwaves
Gilbert Achcar talked the defeat of Hezbollah before coming to the
point. The defeat of Hezbollah would be a huge loss of Iran, both
psychologically and strategically. Iran would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It
would lose its major means to destabilize and inject itself into the heart of
the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to
establish itself as the regional power. The United States has gone far out on a
limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on
685

Israels ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership His search for
victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but
Americas confidence in Israel as well Charles Krauthammer, Washington
Post, August 4, 2006.
He went on to add, the administration now has to admit that anyone
including myself who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has
to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening,
and we cant throw more good lives after good lives But second best is
leaving Iraq. Because the worst option the one Iran loves is for us to stay
in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes
We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength and
that requires a broad coalition. The longer we maintain a unilateral failing
strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the
stronger the enemies of freedom will become. Thomas Fiedman, New York
Times, August 4, 2006.
Everyday that passes shows more of those who enthusiastically
supported the Bush Administrations imperial drive in the Middle East
leaving its sinking ship. There can be no doubt any longer that what
many had forecast long ago is proving absolutely true: the Bush
Administration will definitely go down in history as the clumsiest crew that
ever stood at the helm of the American Empire.
However, what the Time authors announced as marking the end of
cowboy diplomacy a strategic makeover is evident in the ascendancy of
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proved to be a more than wishful
thinking almost as soon as it was printed, in light of the events that unfolded
subsequently as Israel launched its most brutal aggression. Cowboy
diplomacy, it turned out, had just been replaced with cowgirl diplomacy
essentially the same.
True, Condoleezza Rice did her best to put some make-up on the face
of the Bush Administrations foreign policy, but there was no significant
shift in substance. A pillar of this administration since its inception, she
shares the same delusions of grandeur and folly of overreaching designs
that characterize the rest of the team.

ROLE OF CRUSADERS

686

Crusaders role in the war has been referred to in the foregoing

comments; herein is the exclusive look at it beginning with excerpts from
two documents. On 4th August, an open letter to Bush from an Arab girl,
Mira al-Hussein was published in the News. It is your choice, Mr Bush, to
support Israel, just like it is our the entire Arab World and Muslim Worlds
choice to support Lebanon. You insist that Israel has the right to defend
itself. Defending oneself, I believe, is a universal right, not exclusive to
Israel.
In Qana, 57 armless, defenceless civilians died in an Israeli air strike,
37 of them were children. Maybe these numbers dont matter to you, Mr
Bush; they are mere numbers of the nameless Lebanese dead. But they
matter to more than 200 million Arabs in the Middle East.
But it seems that Iraqi oil is dearer than American blood. I am
somewhat relieved to arrive at this conclusion. At least theres no racism
against a certain group of people. Everybody is potential sacrifice to
secure US interests, even if it means sacrificing a whole nation.
We have dream of a new Middle East. Not the New Middle East
that youve been brainstorming in your Oval Office. It is the new Middle
East that Middle Easterners have been dreaming of; a Middle East with no
violence, and no US-made weapons to fuel that violence. It is a dream that
only we, Middle Easterners, are allowed to dream and realize it.
In Arabic we have a saying that goes, they murder the murdered and
walk in his funeral. Allow me to interpret this for you, Mr Bush: Your
precision-guided missiles shipment has arrived in Tel Aviv. These
missiles will precisely fall onto Lebanese villages; kill hundreds; and
displace thousands more.
Yet you have compassionately been able to send aid to Beirut, at the
same time, with supplies for the thousands of people directly and fatally
affected by your vocal, immoral and military support for Israel. Please
include US flags in your aid shipment to Beirut; they must have burned
all the US flags in stock.
Mr Bush, Lebanon can and will be rebuilt, but lost lives cannot be
restored. Your credibility and your governments credibility have long
been lost irretrievably lost like those lost innocent lives. People will not
forget this though. They will not turn the other cheek; they will retaliate
just like you had chosen to retaliate after 9/11. Retaliation is a value you
have successfully promoted by putting it into practice, always.

687

I was born too late to see how the British Empire had collapsed, but
right on time to see how the American Empire falling apart. Mr Bush,
you will surely be remembered in history for hastening the process.
Next day, a joint rejoinder by Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, Eduardo
Galeano, Howard Zinn, Ken Loach, John Berger and Arundhati Roy was
published in the Guardian. The US-backed Israeli assault on Lebanon has
left the country numb, smoldering and angry. The massacre in Qana and the
loss of life is not simply disproportionate. It is, according to existing
international laws, a war crime.
The deliberate and systematic destruction of Lebanons social
infrastructure by the Israeli air force was also a war crime, designed to
reduce that country to the status of an Israeli-US protectorate. The attempt
has backfired. In Lebanon itself, 87% of the population now supports
Hezbollahs presence, including 80% of Christian and Druze and 89% of
Sunni Muslims, while 8% believe the US supports Lebanon. But these
actions will not be tried by any court set up by the international
community since the US and its allies that commit are complicit in these
appalling crimes will not permit it.
It has now become clear that the assault on Lebanon to wipe out
Hezbollah had been prepared long before. Israels crimes had been given a
green light by the US and its loyal British ally, despite the opposition to
Blair in his own country.
In short, the peace that Lebanon enjoyed has come to an end, and a
paralyzed country is forced to remember a past it had hoped to forget. The
state terror inflicted on Lebanon is being repeated in the Gaza ghetto,
while the international community stands by and watches in silence.
Meanwhile, the rest of Palestine is annexed and dismantled with the direct
participation of the US and the tacit approval of its allies.
We offer our solidarity and support to the victims of this
brutality and to those who mount a resistance against it. For our part, we
will use all the means at our disposal to expose the complicity of our
governments in these crimes. There will be no peace in the Middle East
while the occupations of Palestine and Iraq and the temporarily paused
bombings of Lebanon.
The analysts kept recalling the history of unjust treatment meted out
to Palestinians; this week it was George Galloway. When you hear
commentators say the roots of the current conflict go back to the seizure of

688

two Israeli soldiers a few weeks ago, the roots go back a lot further they go
back over decades.
The aggression did not begin in 2006. It began in 1917 when an
anti-Semitic British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour, gave in the name of
one people, to the Zionist leaders who claimed to represent a second people
the land of Palestine.
There was a commemoration of the King David Hotel bombing
last week. Those lionized at it were not the victims, but the perpetrators.
Alongside surviving members of the Urgun, Binyamin Netanyahu, former
Israeli prime minister and the darling of CNN and the BBC, attended the
event. He told journalists, its very important to make the distinction
between terror groups and freedom fighter, and between terror action and
legitimate military action.
Hes exactly right. Thats why I have no hesitation in saying that
Hezbollah is not and has never been a terrorist organization. It is the
legitimate national resistance movement of Lebanon. What the US cannot
forgive is the fact that Hezbollah succeeded in driving Israel out of Lebanon
in 2000 after 18 year occupation, liberating all but the Shebaa Farms area.
This gave it a prestige across the confessional and sectarian divides
in Lebanon and across the Middle East. Central to the strategy of Israel,
the US and Britain is an attempt to recreate and explode those sectarian
divides as part of this latest phase of the war on terror.
It seems like only yesterday we were being told that the US and
Britain had liberated the long-suffering Shia Muslims of Iraq from Sunni
domination. Opposition to occupation was supposedly just the work of
Sunni die-hards and rejectionists.
The occupiers have fomented sectarian division in an effort to
stave off a national resistance front. Now, the same imperial powers and
their local puppets are fostering a reverse sectarianism across the Middle
East as they try to leave Lebanon and Hezbollah isolated in the face of
Israels onslaught.
The puppet presidents and corrupt kings who rule the Middle
East from one end to the other almost without exception are spinning the
same yarn. It is all they have to say as the standing of Hezbollah among the
mass of Arabs Shia or Sunni, Muslim or Christian soars.
Just as all George Bush and Tony Blair have to say over the
slaughter of Lebanese children is that Israel has a right to defend itself
689

and alls fair in the war against terrorism. That makes it doubly important
that the anti-war movement raises its voice clearly.
To be for peace means to be for the justice without which there
can be no peace. To be for justice means to take sides against injustice. The
invasion of Lebanon by Israel, for thats what it is, is a monstrous injustice.
Nasim Zehra observed that US policy is illogical, illegal and ill-fated.
Here is the illogical part. Washingtons stated goals are the same as
Israels; to disarm if not to destroy the Hezbollah, neutralize Iranian and
Syrian influence in the region and to strengthen the Lebanese government.
Israels security context has not improved. Instead in perception and in
reality the threats are ever-expanding. At the core of these threats is
simultaneously Israels aggressive search for security and the unresolved
Palestinian issue. Both facilitated accentuated intra-state rivalries promoting
political extremism and spawning off armed militias across South West
Asia.
How is the policy illegal? It works to selectively implement Security
Council resolutions. While it awards a carte blanche to Israelis to pursue
their security as they consider fit, at a practical level it remained indifferent
to the creation of a Palestinian homeland. US policy has enabled the Israeli
state to violate legally laid down parameters of state behaviour. It remains a
state that refuses to lay down its borders. Israel occupied Lebanese territory
for two decades and continues to occupy Syrian territory.
And finally for the future of US policy, it is ill-fated. The time
between policy implementation and its abysmal failure is now shrinking;
first Iraq and now Lebanon. Bush is following a strategy used by former US
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. This is to line up elite Arab support
against all the elements within the Arab World that threaten Israels security.
And the rest will follow.
The Arab hostility towards Israel was inevitable given that its
creation was at the cost of the Palestinian homeland. But instead of
neutralizing the Arab hostility by working for a Palestinian homeland
Washington has sought to wean away the Arab regimes from the Palestinian
cause. With a festering Palestinian wound, the undying resistance and
an aggressive and insecure Israeli state, a stable Middle East will be an
illusion.
But will this ever change? The juxtaposition of an illogical, illegal
and ill-fated policy and the Washington mindset leaves little hope for
imminent change. The Washington mindset is best described in this weeks
690

Newsweek. Bush thinks the new war vindicates his early vision of the
regions struggle: of good versus evil, civilization versus terrorism, freedom
versus Islamic fascism. Yet he still trusts his gut to tell him whats right and
he still expects others to follow his lead. For Bush diplomacy is not the art of
a negotiated compromise. Its smoother way to get where he wants to go.
Eric Ruder explained as to why Bush supports the strategy
unconditional support for Israel. Israels Yediot Ahronot newspaper once
compared the US to the Godfather, and Israel to the Godfathers
messenger since Israel undertakes the dirty work of the Godfather, who
always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business.
The very existence of Israel and its stability as a US foothold in the
region greatly enhances the ability of the US to force Arab regimes to
make agreements at the negotiating table. After all, if Israel has already
assured the US a secure grip on the region, why shouldnt Arab leaders
derive benefits from making their own deals with the US?
Though the billions that the US gives to Israel seem exorbitant, the
US spends far more annually to maintain its military bases throughout the
Arab World, not to mention its many military installations throughout
Europe and Asia. In that sense, US support of Israel is a bargain and the
Israel lobby serves the useful purpose of protecting the US governments
investments.
Farooq Sulehria rightly observed that this is a proxy war. But it is not
Hezbollah fighting Irans/Syrias proxy war. It is, in fact, Israel fighting
the US proxy war. And the war was not provoked by Hezbollah but had
been a well thought out Israeli plan. Of all the Israels wars since 1948, this
was the one for which Israel was most prepared, Gerald Steinberg, a
political science professor at Israels Bar-Ilan University, told the San
Francisco Chronicle almost a year in advance.
So, the current aggression had prior approval of the US as brought out
by John Kampfner. I am told that the Israelis informed George W Bush in
advance of their plans to destroy Hezbollah by bombing villages in
southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair
knew. This exposes as a fraud the debate of the past week about calling for a
ceasefire. Indeed, one of the reasons why negotiations failed in Rome was
British obduracy. This has been a case not for turning a blind eye and failing
to halt the onslaught, but of providing active support.
Western media kept supporting the unjust war. Alefia T Hussain
cautioned, protecting viewers from what is actually happening can have
691

disastrous results, as we see with American networks that sanitize their

broadcasts. They will show bombs being dropped or guns being fired, but
keep at a distance the actual affect of the bombings or gunfire on real human
beings so that everything seems to be a video game rather than real life.
Shahid Shah observed, American mainstream media is trying to
look at Hezbollah from their homemade filters. They are using two
separate filters to look at the Middle East and the rest of the world.
Fortunately, the filter that they use to observe Israel conveniently wipes out
all criminal activities of the Israeli forces. The other filter is used to watch
Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, and only reveals the terrorist activities of
children as young as three years and even of the disabled.
For the Americans the Hezbollah is a very strong guerrilla force
armed with weapons of mass destruction (remember Iraq). This filter shows
that Iran has nuclear weapons and it has been supplying its weapons to
Hezbollah. But nothing is said about the American aid being used against
Arabs in the Middle East. This filter does not show that all the missiles
that target Beirut including the one that hit Qana were made in USA.
The largest circulated daily of United States USA Today on Tuesday
wrote that during a visit of Miami the other day, he (Bush) urged Iran and
Syria to stop backing Hezbollah with money and arms. He did not talk
about the money and arms that the US is supplying to Israel.
Thus, Blair is the accomplice in the ongoing spree of crimes. The
Guardian wrote, Tony Blair has a habit of drawing attention to his policy
failures by analyzing them. He did it in Los Angeles on Tuesday night in a
significant speech on the Middle East that described a region ablaze with
conflict without recognizing his own role as one of the arsonists.
Mark Malloch Brown, UNs deputy secretary general, had a point
yesterday when he argued Mr Blair is no neutral broker, but a player in
the dispute. The great pity is that he appears to have restrained the Foreign
Office and perhaps the foreign secretary from the sort of independent action
which might have allowed Britain to win some Arab opinion away from the
extremists.
Instead, what Mr Blair once called his attempt to run the race of
liberty has collapsed into hesitation in the face of conflict in Lebanon.
Isolated within his party, with lukewarm cabinet support; isolated in Europe
apart from Germany; and very much isolated in the wider world he appears
to be driven by a personal obsession with leadership. Sometimes listening
is better than leading.
692

Peter Watt thought that the victims, not the aggressors should have
been supported. If we intervened in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq to save
those people from violence and oppression, we should intervene in
Lebanon to stop the indiscriminate killing of civilians and decimation of
the infrastructure.
Yet the response of Blair and Bush has been to rule out any chance of
ceasefire, although Hezbollah has offered one if Israel stops its
bombardment and releases kidnapped prisoners. This is not what Bush and
Blair want, and it would be foolish to take seriously Condoleezza Rices
wanting peace because the invasion of Lebanon is paid for by the United
States itself.
Americas proxy army in Israel is propped up and armed to the hilt
by the same people who claim to champion peace and democracy. Blair
longs for peace, he tells us, but says that it would be wrong to stop the
shipment of arms to Israel from the US and continues tolend a hand in
the new arm of Americas war.
The message from Rice, Bush and holier-than-thou Mr Blair is that
any ceasefire has to wait. If the ceasefire is not on both sides, he warns,
Israel will continue to take action. Thats the reality. Israel, he and Bush
remind us has a right to defend itself. Implicit in this reversal of reality is
the view that Palestine and Lebanon dont possess that same right
although the crimes against the two countries, spanning several decades, are
incomparably worse.
David Clark recalled Cooks statement. Nowhere has Cooks wisdom
and moral leadership been more sorely missed than in the Middle East and
George Bushs ill-conceived war on terror. Recall his widely admired
resignation speech in which he spoke of the strong sense of injustice
throughout the Muslim World at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the
US and another rule for the rest.

BY PEACEKEEPING
The Crusaders had ignored all appeals for an early ceasefire, but by
the start of fourth week, they started contemplating about the size,
composition and mandate of the peacekeepers. The News, wrote, the
question is that will Israel and America listen to the growing voices of sanity
or continue with the madness? From what Mr Olmert has said in his
interview, it seems that Americans had told Israelis well in advance that they
693

had a certain amount of time to do their job and only then a ceasefire
would be put in place, but not before a buffer zone in south Lebanon is
installed.
In view of the preferred role of the peacekeepers, troops from NATO
countries were an obvious choice. Robert Fisk had some reservations on
this. Hezbollah is likely to view its arrival as a proxy Israeli army. It is,
after all, supposed to be a buffer force to protect Israel not, as the
Lebanese have quickly noted, to protect Lebanon and the last NATO army
that came to this country was literally blasted out of its mission by suicide
bombers.
One of the worlds toughest guerrilla armies is not going to hand
over its guns to NATO generals. But most of the force will be Muslim, we
are told. This may be true, and the Turks are already unwisely agreeing to
participate. But, are the Lebanese going to accept the descendents of the
hated Ottoman Empire? Will the Shia south of Lebanon accept Sunni
Muslim soldiers?
Indeed, how come the people of southern Lebanon have not been
consulted about the army which is supposed to live in their lands? Because
of course, it is not coming for them. It will come because the Israelis and
the Americans want it there to help reshape the Middle East. This no doubt
makes sense in Washington, where self-delusion rules diplomacy almost as
much as it does in Israel. But Americas dreams usually become the Middle
Easts nightmares.
South-west Afghanistan and Iraq are now so dangerous that no
reporters can witness the carnage being perpetrated as a result of our
hopeless projects. But, in Lebanon, its going to be live-time coverage of
disaster that can only be avoided by the one diplomatic step Messrs Bush
and Blair refuse to take: by talking to Damascus.
So when this latest foreign army arrives, count the days, or
hours, to the first attacks upon it. Then well hear all over again that we
are fighting evil, that they Hezbollah and Palestinian guerrillas, or
anyone else planning to destroy our army hate our values; and then, of
course, well be told that this is all part of the War on Terror the nonsense
which Israel has been peddling.
Patrick Seale was of the view that the truth is that the proposed
international force is, so far, little more than a mirage. It lacks reality
There is, in fact, no international consensus that such a force could be sent to
Lebanon. The Lebanese themselves are by no means convinced that it could
694

play a useful role. If the force were to attempt to disarm Hezbollah, it would
be immediately attacked.
General Michel Aoun, a former commander of the Lebanese army,
and now the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, has come out openly
against the deployment of a multinational force in Lebanon. His argument is
that it would only serve to revive sectarian strife Rather than send a
multinational force to Lebanon, he believes the international community
should set up a tribunal to try Israels leaders for war crimes!
The main reason why the proposed multinational force has got
nowhere is because it is paralyzed by two conflicting viewpoints essentially
those of the United States and France We are witnessing something like a
muted replay of the quarrel between Paris and Washington which broke out
over the war in Iraq three years ago.
Anxious to protect its Israeli ally, the United States wants a
multinational force to be deployed in south Lebanon as soon as possible.
Israels Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has even said that he will not agree to a
ceasefire until a robust multinational force is in place.
Its mission, he told the Financial Times on August 3, should be
stopping violence against innocent Israelis from Lebanon and disarming
this murderous organization, the Hezbollah, which is the long arm of Iran.
He wants European nations to send troops, as well as Muslim nations such
as Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia Olmert seems to be admitting that
Israel cannot defend its own borders and needs a multinational force to do
the job for it! Or else he wants an excuse to keep Israeli forces in south
Lebanon indefinitely.
The French view, as outlined by President Jacques Chirac and his
foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, is that the US and Israel are
putting the cart before the horse. No multinational force can be sent to
Lebanon, the French argue, until a ceasefire is in place and until all the
parties to the conflict, including Hezbollah, agree on a political settlement.
In other words, a multinational force can help keep the peace, but it
cannot enforce peace by fighting one side on behalf of the other. The
French position has the benefit of being realistic. No state not even the
United States is prepared to send troops to Lebanon to fight Israels war for
it. Certainly France will not act until conditions are right.
Although France has serious differences with the US, it does not
want their quarrel to result in a serious breach, such as the one that

695

occurred over Iraq. Indeed, it has been trying to patch up its quarrel with
Washington over the past couple of years.
A relevant factor is Chiracs personal hostility to Syrias President
Bashar al-Assad. He blames the Syrian leader for extending the mandate of
Lebanons President Emile Lahoud a man he considers an enemy of France
and he suspects Syria of being responsible for the murder of Rafik Hariri,
one of Chiracs closest friends But Chiracs animus against Syria, and his
refusal to engage in a dialogue with Damascus, has distorted French
diplomacy. Ignoring Syrias vital interests in Lebanon will not help
resolve the crisis.
The real obstacle to a settlement in Lebanon, however, remains US
President George W Bushs unconditional support for Israel and his
primitive understanding of the Middle East conflict. He depicts Hezbollah
and Hamas as violent, cold-blooded killers who are trying to stop the
advance of freedom and democracy! This is arrant nonsense.
The Guardian wrote, but in practice, even without yesterdays
tragedies, the details fell short of what is likely to be needed to achieve
peace, even though the draft resolution does inch things forward. It calls for
a cessation of hostilities, rather than a mere suspension.
Sadly, though, on many issues the Israelis remain as intransigent as
Hezbollah may prove, so it is still hard to see a ceasefire sticking. The lack
of balance in the draft resolution poses further problems. Israel is called
on only to end offensive military actions, but it claims the whole
disproportionate campaign so far has been defensive.
For all the problems, though, it is better that the resolution is
adopted than not. For it is a first step and the only step available down
a diplomatic track which alone might offer a route away from carnage;
whether it will in the end do so hinges crucially on the US.
Having acquiesced in the resolution, the hope must be that the US
will now want to prove it will work. If so, it will lean on Israel to cease all
operations other than those genuinely essential for defence. Even then,
Israel would understandably find it difficult to scale operations down if
Hezbollah continues to fire rockets across its border.
Stopping these attacks will be difficult, not least because Hezbollahs
patrons in Iran and Syria have been excluded from the diplomatic
process. In the end, however difficult, their involvement is an essential part
of a lasting deal.

696

Mash Lipman wished something before saying the same. It was the
opportunity Hezbollahs actions seemed to offer of dealing a telling blow
to Iran by crushing its Lebanese proxy, it can be argued, which danced in
the minds of members of Israels cabinet and general staff. What impelled
the US, followed by Britain, to delay and obstruct the diplomacy which
might have brought an earlier end to the fighting was, again arguably, that
same impulse. Taking down Iran was more important that saving villages of
Lebanon.
The Americans and Israelis might argue that it is Ahmadinejads Iran
they have to deal with now, not Khatamis or Rafsanjanis. Yet Ahmadinejad
is only one figure in the Iranian elite The other Iran, which wants
friendship with the West and is not intransigent on Israel, is still there and
not totally disempowered. In any case, if the fighting in Lebanon is to
stop, Iran will have to be consulted. And if the menacing rivalry between
Iran and Israel which led to that fighting is really to end, there will sooner or
later have to be a fundamental bargain between the United States and Iran.

ROLE OF MUSLIMS
The wise Muslim elite, which assembled in Malaysia, volunteered to
do the peacekeeping job for the Crusaders to protect Israel. They could
dare not say that in any buffer zone formula should include part of the
northern Israel into the buffer zone, which will be primarily aimed at serving
Israeli interests.
Dr M S Jillani was of the view that, the happenings in Lebanon
during the last three weeks have convinced the world about certain realities.
First, the US and Israel are the names of the same ruthless hegemony which
has been wreaking havoc around the world for the last sixty years. Second,
there do not exist any laws or principles except those which suit despots and
the avaricious of the world. Third, OIC is a dead horse otherwise it would
have held an emergency meeting the next day after the assault on Lebanon.
Fourth, there is a huge gulf between rulers and common person in Muslim
countries. Fifth, a determined group of courageous persons with a cause can
face the most savage and unprincipled force. The people of every Muslim
nation recognize the US, Israel and their cronies as enemies of Muslims and
Islam, though their rulers tow the line of the West even if it were against the
interests of the Ummah.

697

Whatever the intensity of feelings about these factors, they definitely

have given a sudden boost to the sentiments of brotherhood among
Muslims of the world irrespective of national boundaries and ethnic
divisions and the stand taken by their governments. This must have been a
surprise to the US power elite and their Zionist manipulators. A noteworthy
aspect of the prevailing situation is that despite almost a universal feeling
against Israel and the overwhelming support for the Hezbollah, very few
Muslim governments have condemned the invasion of Lebanon and the
massive destruction of civilian residential areas in the real sense. What has
been said is the standard message of sympathy sent after a large mishap
anywhere.
The most publicized sentiments from the Muslim World were
expressed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt condemning Hezbollah.
These messages contain a lesson for the Ummah: the Muslim rulers are not
free to take the side of the Ummah as it could displease their protectors.
Second, their individual views about Hezbollah and its allegiance with a
certain ideology of Islam are more important than the cause behind the
present bloodshed. It means that rulers of these states are dishonest since
they have taken a stand against the wishes of their people. What can one
expect with such rulers around?
The conflict between Israel and the people of Palestine and Arabs
in general is related to four basic issues. First, what right did the Jews
have to descend on Palestine to establish a government in the heart of a
country professing another faith? Second, what right did the usurpers have to
displace the local population by force creating some of the most shameful
instances of human degradation and misery in the history of mankind?
Third, why did the Israelis indulge in expanding the area of their illegally
begotten territory and usurp parts of neighbouring countries with no
intention of returning these territories and with every intention to extend
their boundaries in future? Fourth, what right did the Israelis have to start the
sinister business of indulging in hooliganism on behalf of a confirmed
expansionary power located in another part of the world, and transform
themselves into a continuous threat for the entire Middle East region?
What is most revolting about Middle East situation, however, is
the forced entrenchment of an alien people gathered from around the
world, who have been empowered to become the most dominant power in
the region, with an agenda dictated from abroad. Ones problem as such is
not the Jews but the elements set to degrade and annihilate the Palestinians
who are the real masters of the land and treat them as enemies in their own
698

homeland with their hope of Muslim help having faded long ago. Their
plight is worst than that of the people of East Timor and Darfur whose case
is pleaded incessantly I suspect because they happen to be Christians.
One pleads strong and prompt action to restore to the Palestinians
their freedom, dignity and their lands at the same time reigning in Israel
and stopping its aggression and adventurism in the area. There is no doubt
that this will have to be done by Muslims themselves. They should learn
by now, that extreme polarization in the world will not permit any country to
come to help in an armed conflict.
People of these lands could have looked to their political allies or the
Muslim countries, but experience must have taught them that nobody in the
world including international organizations would move even their little
finger to save the people of a country invaded by a powerful nation or its
side-kick. As such there is no hope of any justice from any world body
even in the present case.
With the breakdown of traditional friendships and religious
considerations, the weaker nations and their people are left with only two
courses. One of them is the formation of new political, social, economic and
strategic international organizations based on religious affiliations. Let us be
honest: when it comes to matters of religion, which country of the world is
really secular and objective? Each one of them surrenders to the religious
demands of the majority. To expect otherwise would be unnatural.
But Muslims must have learnt a lesson from the state of the existing
apex Muslim organization the OIC which does not deserve even a
mention as it has failed Muslims again and again. This time, Israel
attacked Lebanon on July 13, and the OIC has not been able to even convene
a meeting at a junior level. What use is a meeting now when Lebanon has
already been battered so badly?
As a last word, the world should note that if the war in Lebanon is
intensified and an offensive is initiated against new Muslim targets, the
world should be ready for new terrorist organizations and new
extremists strategies to destroy; as these are bred by the type of injustice,
oppression and desperation that is being faced in Lebanon and the rest of the
Middle East.
Dr Masooda Bano observed that now the attacks on Afghanistan and
Iraq that were to be justified in the name of al-Qaeda are history and the
focus is on the next target, which happens to be a Shia nation, the same
policy-makers and the same media outlets are keen to link Shias to militancy
699

in the Middle East. On one hand it is helping to systematically build an

alliance to target Hezbollah and Iran. At the same time, it is an attempt
to take the sympathy of the Sunnis away from Lebanon and any possible
attack on Iran.
The strategy, however, is not fully effective. Many Sunni groups
can for now see above the sectarian lines and are aggressively condemning
Israeli attacks on Lebanon and are promising support to Hezbollah In the
Middle East, Israel is one key factor uniting all the Muslim countries
otherwise they stand divided on many fronts including sectarian divides.
Whereas in the Muslim majority countries outside the Middle East,
western opposition to Irans nuclear aspirations was often interpreted as a
proof of western biases against Muslim nations, for most of the Middle
Eastern nations, it was a welcome move. Irans possession of nuclear
weapons puts the Sunni kingdoms at threat and they are surely happy to
see any move that can restrain Iran from its nuclear aspirations.
The fact is that sectarian differences within religions are as deadly as
between religions. However, there are certain issues, which due to their
moral legitimacy, rise above the sectarian divides in mobilizing mass
support. It is hoped that Israeli invasion of Lebanon will prove such a point
where the Sunni and Shia along with all peace movements in the West exert
pressure on Israel to halt its operations against Lebanese people. Getting
divided on sectarian grounds on this issue will only be a folly.
The News wrote it impressions about OIC meeting. It is suspiciously
close to the timing given to the Israelis by the Americans for the IDFs
offensive in Lebanon. A ceasefire is a growing worldwide demand, but the
OIC declaration at least goes one step further by asking Israel to compensate
Lebanon and its people for the losses and devastation that they have
suffered. They demanded nothing from the dog and instead preferred to tie
their demands to the tail.
The proposal for strengthened UN peacekeeping forces in southern
Lebanon, with greater participation of soldiers from the OIC countries,
merits closer examination. It is at least a better alternative to having NATO
or some other US-led force in south Lebanon because that will effectively
neutralize Hezbollah and give Israel the buffer that it wants presumably up
to the Litani River, which at its maximum is some 30 kilometers inside
Lebanon. Muslim peacekeepers wont be able to stop the inevitable. They
will virtually act as security guards for Israel by occupying 30km wide
swath of Lebanese territory.
700

However, all said and done, it is late in the day for the OIC to
wake up to this need, more than three weeks after the launch of the assault
on Lebanon and five weeks after Israels reinvasion of the Gaza Strip The
OIC must offset its tardy and almost casual approach to the crisis by trying
to ensure that the ambitious pledges it made on Thursday are effectively
fulfilled.
Air Cdre M Yaqoob Khan from Rawalpindi said, and where is the
Muslim Ummah when a Muslim country needs it? Why does it take them
ten days to call an emergency session of the OIC, so that Mr Bush and his
Israeli cohorts can have their time to kill as many Lebanese as possible?
As regards Syria, Imad Moustpha was of the view that Damascus
wanted to talk. The current US administration has publicly dissuaded
Israel from responding to the repeated Syrian invitations to revive the
peace process Concurrently, administration officials devised a new
policy toward my country: Dont talk to Syria at all, and may be its regime
will collapse. That is why the US decided to change its 20-year position
toward Syrian involvement in Lebanon.
Gone are the days when US special envoys to the Middle East would
spend hours, if not days, with Syrian officials brainstorming, discussing,
negotiating, and looking for creative solutions leading to a compromise or
settlement. Instead, this administration follows the Bolton Doctrine:
There is no need to talk to Syria, because Syria knows what it needs to do.
End of the matter.
When the United States realizes that it is high time to reconsider its
policies toward Syria, Syria will be more than willing to engage. However,
the rules of the game should be clear. As President Bashar al-Assad has said,
Syria is not a charity. If the US wants something from Syria, then Syria
requires something in return from the US
Sanam Vakil termed the conflict as a proxy war. In Iran, this war
represents another facet of the countrys forthcoming battle with the West,
and within the Middle East. US president George W Bushs administration
has implicated Iran for allegedly promoting the Lebanese conflict. The battle
originating with the Iranian nuclear issue has now extended to Irans role in
the Levant. The view of many in Tehran is that its just a matter of time
for the fallout of that conflict to extend their way.
Hezbollahs secretary general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, might or
might not have received a stamp of approval from Irans top guard for his
abduction of Israeli soldiers on July 12, but there is unanimous agreement in
701

Tehran that it is Iran that has reaped the benefits of the short-term gains
of the confrontation. This war of distraction has provided cover as Iran
analyzes its nuclear options.
The Security Council has set a deadline of August 31 for Tehran to
freeze uranium enrichment or face sanctions. The latter are looming
possibility as the regime contends that under the shadow of continued
American threats, it is impossible to make any concessions.
Lebanons war is also President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads war.
Its scope has enabled the president to strengthen his hand internally.
Hezbollahs tenacious resistance demonstrates the triumph of Irans exported
ideology. Ahmadinejad has championed the Hezbollah cause and called on
his Muslim brethren to stand by Lebanon against Israeli aggression.
Amir Taheri cried about Islamic terrorism at a time when the entire
world was witnessing perpetration of terrorism upon Lebanese and
Palestinians and Muslims elsewhere. The rallying cry of Tony Blair for
western democracies to remain united in the global war against terror and
engage in a battle of values has not been heeded. The western powers, led
by the United States, have run away from the Middle East, allowing the
Islamic republic and its newly acquired allies in al-Qaeda to set the agenda.
He joined Blairs war cry. The former American University of
Beirut has been replaced by the Iranian-sponsored Islamic University.
As teenage volunteers of martyrdom chant Allah, Koran, Khomeini, the
new chancellor of the Islamic University prepares to read a message from
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president He calls on the Lebanese to
prepare for more sacrifices because his jihad to wipe the Jewish stain of
shame off the map is only the beginning. He plans to liberate Egypt, North
Africa and Spain.
Much has changed in Lebanon since the Party of God seized power.
Women have been put into purdah and men forced to grow beards,
Bars, pubs, discotheques, hotels with a douche reputation, and other places
of sin have been closed. Despite bearing a Muslim name, how shamelessly
he counted these threats posed to the values of the West.
Swimming on some beaches is allowed, though not for women,
and men are required to enter the sea fully dressed. Gone are cinemas,
theatres, the opera, comedy saloons, and bookshops selling publications that
are at variance with Islamic values All that is but a glimpse of what
Lebanon could look like if and when Hezbollah, armed to the teeth and flush

702

with Iranian cash, realizes its dream of extending south Beirut to the whole
of Lebanon.
The Lebanese know what all that could mean because they have seen
it first hand in Beiruts suburbs controlled by Hezbollah. But how many
might wish to live in such a system? The answer came in Lebanons first
free general election this year: Hezbollah and its allies won 14 of the 27
seats allocated to the Shiite community This means that some 89% of the
Lebanese, including half of Shiite community, do not share Hezbollahs
vision of an Islamic state modeled on Iran.
Much of Hezbollahs current power and prestige is due to the fact
that it is the best funded and best armed political-military machine in the
country, feeding thousands of families through employment in its business or
with subsidies and stipends.
Nevertheless, it would be nave to deny the fact that the message of
Hezbollah, which is in fact that of the Khomeinist revolution in Iran and the
various Salafist movements in other Muslim countries, appeals to large
segments of opinion in the Islamic World and beyond.
There are many westerners who, prompted by self-loathing or as a
result of ideological passions, share the hatred that Hezbollah and alQaeda have for the infidel west. The problem is that while most selfloathers in the West no longer use violence to express their views, Islamism
of the type represented by al-Qaeda and Hezbollah is wedded to terrorism.
The self-loathers had no need to do this as Bush had already unleashed terror
in the name of holy war.
But there lies both the strength and the Achilles heel of the Islamist
movement. Terrorism allows small groups to punch above their political
weight The defeat of Islamism, an enemy not only of the West but also
of the majority Muslims, can be speeded up if force is complemented with
political, ideological and cultural campaigns to reveal the bankruptcy of
the Islamist doctrine.
This is not for the first time that western values, of which many
are now universal, have been challenged by mortal foes prepared to use
violence, terrorism and war. In every previous stance those foes were
defeated because they offered despotism and despair There is no reason
that the outcome should be different this time or that the Khameinist
University should ever replace the American University of Beirut.

703

Persons like Shireen M Mazari are an antidote the men like Taheri.
She wrote, The invasion of Iraq dissipated the war against terror, but the
Israeli killing sprees in Gaza and now in Lebanon have surely altered
the whole nature of this war itself. If it was not clear at the time of the Iraq
invasion, the Israeli attack against Lebanon should leave no room for doubt
that the Bush-Blair combine, alongside the murderous state of Israel, are
conducting a war of terrorization meant to subdue Muslim states and civil
societies into submission to their global agendas. The present targets are the
Arab states and societies as well as Iran and the pretexts are created to suit
the situation.
Supported by the Bush-Blair combine, Israel clearly feels it is not
subject to any international laws and norms of state conduct What has
galled the Israeli and the Bush-Blair combine has been the ability of Hamas
and Hezbollah to respond and stand their ground against Israeli aggression.
The war of terrorization has been a challenge for these forces of the
Muslim World even as the Arab states have adopted a deafening silence,
signaling helplessness and submissiveness to the Bush-Blair combine.
Even as Muslim civil societies have had to face the horror of Israeli attacks
against innocent Lebanese, Blair has had the nerve to carry out a tirade
against Muslims in a speech delivered to the World Affairs Council in Los
Angeles last week.
While British diplomats and the US government are trying to
seek a ban on the truth about the Israeli horrors in Lebanon by
pressurizing the Arab media into submission, Blair actually had the audacity
to declare that in the media coverage, there is no understanding of the
Israeli predicament.
And if the truth be told, surely it is the US that is preventing
democracy in Palestine, not the so-called Muslim extremists, Mr Blair;
or are you going to wear your convenient blinkers while Arabs face
slaughter at the hands of the Israeli military machine? And who is actually
carrying out the slaughter of the innocent and doing it deliberately in
Lebanon and Palestine? Israeli forces aided and abetted by the Bush-Blair
combine.
Who has given Blair the right to speak on behalf of what he calls
moderate Muslims in the first place? No. clearly there is another
insidious war going on and that is a war of terrorizing the Muslims into
accepting the new US-UK agenda, which seeks submissive Muslim states
and polities around powerful core states like Israel and India.
704

Yes, India is an integral part of the new emerging doctrine of

coalitions of the willing and core states. That is why India has responded
obediently to the US governments call for banning of the Arab electronic
media since the truth will further ignite Muslim civil societies.
And that is why US Assistant Secretary of State Mr Boucher, in his
statement from New Delhi, appeased India by declaring willy-dilly that,
some of the groups that have designs against India still have pieces in
Pakistan the US has once again shown that if push came to shove it
would always back India against Pakistan. So, of course, no mention was
made of Indias now-established support for terrorists in Pakistan.
For Pakistan it should now be clear that it has to fight its own war
against terrorism for its own national interest regardless of how the USled war on terror transforms into a war of terrorization. But Pakistan
must also realize that no matter how far it goes in the sacrifices it makes in
life and limb for the international war against terror, it will periodically face
politically-motivated accusations from those it is assisting.
As regards India, it is not only Pakistan that has to worry; it is a
potential worry for entire Muslim World. Shahid Raza Burney also
mentioned this point in the context of banning of some TV channels by
India. The banning of Arab channels is a federal government decision,
done under what senior Indian journalists claim to be intense pressure from
the Israeli, American and British governments Arabs sympathetic to India
have therefore met the news with surprise.
The analysts believe the Indian government may have used a clause
within theAct, 1995, that certain channels of programs that can potentially
cause damage to Indias friendly relations with foreign countries can be
banned, a clear violation of democratic ideals such as freedom of expression
and freedom of speech.

IMPACT
There is nothing much to add to what has been said during earlier
weeks of war. However, some of the views expressed during the week in the
context wars impact are mentioned. Air Cdre M Yaqoob Khan from
Rawalpindi said, they support Israel in its mission of vanquishing
Hezbollah in Lebanon. But does it cross their minds that outfits like
Hezbollah are born as a reaction and frustration to what Mr Olmert is doing
to the innocent Lebanese Israels dream of achieving secure frontiers
705

through the massacre of innocent Lebanese and Palestinians through

brutal force can never be realized.
Jonathan Steele looked at it from another angel. Whether or not
Israeli forces seek to occupy a strip of this territory north of the Israeli
border over the coming days, they have already made it impossible for
Lebanese to live in it for years to come. That much is certain, even though
other consequences of this invasion are still shrouded in the fog of war.
Nicholas Kralevs report explained the rising anger in the region,
particularly against the US. Attacks on the Bush Administrations Middle
East policies in the Arab press have culminated in personal insults and racial
slurs aimed at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with one cartoon
depicting her pregnant with an armed monkey. Rice speaks about the birth
of a new Middle East, the cartoons caption reads, referring to the
secretarys recent remarks about the birth pangs of the region.
The image, as well as words such as raven and black spinster to
describe Miss Rice, appeared in Palestinian newspapers controlled by
President Mahmoud Abbas Fatah party. This is truly ugly, said former
senior aide to Madeleine K Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton
administration. Albright is another baby-killer vampire of the Empire.
The recent publications about Miss Rice, which were first reported
by the Website World Net Daily, also included coverage of protests in the
West Bank city of Ramallah while she was meeting with Mr Abbas last
week. Some of the protesters carried by protesters and shown in al-Hayat alJadida read, Murderer Rice, go to Hell and Get out. One poster had
Miss Rice drinking the blood of dead babies and saying, I need more
blood.
Karma Nabulsi said the war is producing generations of refugees
who will also resist Israel has failed to understand that it cannot expel a
people and call itself the victim; that it cannot conquer its neighbours and
treat any and all resistance to that conquest as terrorism; that it cannot arm
itself as a regional superpower and annihilate the institutional fabric of two
peoples without incurring the fury of their children in the years that follow.
Jordan Times commented on the draft resolution prepared by the US
and France. It appears to be a political triumph for Israel and its US ally,
which want the onslaught on Lebanon to continue, to be able afterwards
to reach a sustainable ceasefire The US wants agreement on all the salient
features of the projected Security Council resolution that go beyond the call

706

for an immediate cessation of hostilities before endorsing the call for

ceasefire.
France, Annan and the rest of the international community are of
course right for prioritizing the end of the killing and destruction. As long as
the US remains adamant in its stance, more innocent people will lose
their lives and more destruction will occur. Surely this is not what the
international community wants.

CONCLUSION
The stalemate is imminent, but Israel and the West were bent upon
eliminating or disarming Hezbollah. In doing that the need for the safety of
Lebanese did not emerge at all.
Rice was not seen or heard after complaining about birth pangs.
Perhaps, her pangs have subsided, which does not augur well for the baby
and the would-be mother; it may well end up in still-birth.
The Crusaders were succeeding in their aim of deploying
multinational peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. This force will act as
follow-up echelon of Israeli forces with mandate of mopping-up and
consolidating whatever Israel would gain in the war.
The tears of Lebanese Prime Minister said all about the apathy of
Muslim and Arab rulers. Perhaps, these were of repentance over the
consequence of being pro-American. Maybe the Muslim rulers, including
Musharraf, learn a lesson from this episode.
9th August 2006

707

MAIN THEATRE
Combating insurgency in Iraq and containing Irans nuclear
programme are direct responsibilities the Crusaders led by America. The
continuous bloodshed in Iraq made it difficult to stay the course. Resultantly,
Bush Administration was subjected to severe criticism, but remained
adamant as was evident from the report that US military leaders foresaw exit
from Iraq by 2016.
Messages from leaders of groups fighting against the US and its allies
kept adding fuel to the fire. In his latest audio message, Osama told Bush,
we will keep up our fight to bleed your money dry, kill your men and so
that (your forces) go home defeated, as we defeated you in Somalia.
Speaker of Iraqi parliament accused Jews of financing acts of
violence in the country in order to discredit Islamists who control the
parliament and government so they can install their agents in power.
Apparently, the Jews were not fool to waste their money on a project already
financed sufficiently by the US.
On 28th July, five permanent members of UNSC reportedly reached a
deal on a resolution to be presented for imposition of sanctions if Tehran
were to fail to suspend uranium enrichment. Tehran, however, seemed to be
steadfast on its right to acquire nuclear capability for peaceful purposes.

BLOODSHED IN IRAQ
There was no let in bloodletting in Iraq, but the outside world was
generally kept in dark. On 30th June, sixteen people, including two US
soldiers were killed in various incidents of violence. Next day, at least 66
people were killed and 114 wounded in a pick-up truck bomb blast in Sadr
City. A US vehicle which attempted to approach the blast scene withdrew
708

after it was stoned by angry residents. Three people were killed in a roadside
bomb blast. Four dead bodies were found. A Sunni woman MP was
kidnapped along with eight bodyguards. Official tally of killings in June was
1009. Iraqi and US authorities freed 495 prisoners.
Two persons were killed in two bomb blasts in Baghdad on 2 nd July.
Saddams daughter and first wife were on most wanted list for actively
aiding defence lawyers. Next day, a Shiite MP escaped an assassination
attempt.
At least 3 people were killed and 16 wounded in three bomb blasts in
Baghdad on 3rd July. Four people were wounded in mortar fire. Three
persons were killed and 18 wounded in car bomb and mortar fire in
Mahmoudiyah. Five people were killed elsewhere in the country. Sunni Arab
lawmakers boycotted the parliament and demanded release of an abducted
Sunni woman MP. US military claimed killing an al-Qaeda operative in a
raid in Anbar province.
On 4th July, gunmen abducted a deputy minister along with 19
bodyguards. Two police commandos were killed and three wounded in
roadside bombing. A Sunni cleric was shot dead in Fallujah. Next day, six
people were killed and 17 wounded in car bomb blast in Baghdad; one
person was killed and 7 wounded in another bomb blast; and seven people
were wounded in third blast. In Mosul, a police officer and a civilian were
killed and three others wounded in a car bomb attack. One peshmerga fighter
was killed and two wounded in roadside bombing near Kirkuk and three
persons were wounded when another bomb exploded on arrival of rescue
party. Another Kurd was also shot dead in separate incident. One person was
shot dead in Tikrit. In all, 18 people were killed on this day.
Suicide car bomber killed 13 Iranian pilgrims in Kofa on 6th July. Next
day, at least nine people were killed and 31 wounded in a raid on Shiite
fighters in Sadr City by the US-led forces; targeted Mehdi Army commander
was captured. Eleven people were killed in attacks on three Sunni and one
Shiite mosque and mortar attack killed three and wounded 30 in Shula
district. Car bomb blast outside a mosque in Tal Banat near Mosul killed six
and wounded 46 people. Seven people were wounded in roadside bombing
near a mosque in Baqouba.
Three US soldiers were killed in separate incidents in Anbar province
on 8 July. One translator was killed in drive-by shooting in Baghdad.
Gunmen shot dead three persons in Nahrawan. Three people were killed in
th

709

mortar fire. Four dead bodies were found from various places. US-led forces
surrounded 15 villages near Muqdadiyah.
On 9th July, masked gunmen set up checkpoints and started shooting
Sunni Arabs on the basis of their ID cards. They also went into some Sunni
houses and killed everyone inside. In all 42 people were killed in this
sectarian attack. A Sunni cleric blamed Mehdi Army for the killings and also
blamed police commandos. At least 19 people were killed and 59 wounded
in two car bomb attacks near Shiite mosque in Sunni district of Adhamiyah.
Elsewhere, nine people were killed. Next day, ten people were killed and 51
wounded in car bombing and mortar fire in Sadr City. Twenty Iraqis were
killed in various incidents across the country. Five more US Marines were
booked for rape.
Thirty-two people were killed around the country on 11th July. Next
day, three dead bodies were found in Muqdadiyah, in addition to 24 dead
bodies found elsewhere. A contractor was shot dead in Tikrit and his son was
wounded.
On 14th July, gunmen attacked a checkpoint near Kirkuk and killed all
the 13 soldiers on duty. In Baghdad, at least seven people were killed and
five wounded in bombing outside a Sunni mosque. Four persons, including a
policeman, were killed and five wounded in suicide car bombing in Mosul
and a policeman and a bodyguard were shot dead in separate incidents. A
civilian was killed and nine others wounded in mortar fire in Zafaraniyeh
and two people were killed and four wounded in similar attack in Diyala. US
forces claimed capturing three terrorists in an operation in the vicinity of the
capital and one was killed in another operation near Abu Ghraib.
Two US soldiers were killed in separate attacks in Baghdad on 15 th
July. Two civilians were killed and four wounded in clash between Iraqi
soldiers and militants in Haifa. Seven persons were arrested. One person was
killed and 7 wounded in a clash with insurgents in Baghdad and two people
were killed in a car bomb attack. In Adhamiyah, 45 suspects were held in a
raid conducted by Iraqi Army. Emergency was extended for 30 days.
On 16th July, 23 people were killed and 22 wounded in suicide
bombing in Tuz Khurmatu near Kirkuk. One British soldier was killed
during a raid in tribal area of Garmat Ali. At least 25 Iraqis were killed in
various incidents across the country. Next day, 56 people were killed and 67
wounded as gunmen stormed a crowded market in Mahmudiya. Sunni rebels
were blamed for the killings.

710

About 70 people were killed across Iraq on 18th July. US warned

Turkey against operation in Iraq. Next day, more than 40 people were killed
across the country. On 20th July, 38 dead bodies were found. About a dozen
people were killed in various incidents of violence.
On 21st July, one person was killed and two wounded in bomb blast in
a Sunni mosque in Khalis. Iraqi authorities extended day time curfew in
Baghdad. Next day, US troops killed five people, including two women and
a child in Baqouba during a raid. Dead bodies of four Shias kidnapped
earlier were found. Iraq formed a body to promote reconciliation.
A suicide bomber blew up a minibus in Baghdad killing at least 34
people on 23rd July. Another bomb attack killed 8 people. Iraqi soldiers
entered a mosque and arrested two suspects. A massive bomb killed 22 and
wounded 100 in Kirkuk. Five people were gunned down in Baqouba. US
military cleared a soldier of allegation of killing an Iraqi.
On 27th July, 25 people were killed and 25 wounded in blasts and
mortar fire. Next day, at least 43 Iraqis were killed in various incidents of
violence, including operations by US-led forces.
On 29th July, six Iraqis were killed and 17 wounded in a blast in
Kirkuk. Next day, four US Marines were killed in two incidents in Anbar
province and 11 Iraqis were killed.
Twenty-nine people were abducted in Baghdad on 31st July and 27
people were killed across Iraq. Next day, bombings and shootings killed
more than 70 people a British, an American and over 37 Iraqi soldiers. More
than 40 Iraqis were killed on 3rd August and 18 dead bodies were found. UK
Ambassador warned that civil war in Iraq was more likely.
A suicide bomber killed 15 people in Tikrit on 6 th August. Twenty-six
people were killed in various incidents of violence across the country. USled occupation forces sent reinforcements to Baghdad. Next day, 32 people,
including three US soldiers were killed in Iraq. US-led forces clashed with
Mehdi Army and bombed Sadr City. Talabani said we are not in civil war.
On 8th August, 24 Iraqis were killed and about 80 wounded in the
violence. Next day, at least 30 Iraqis and one US soldier were killed in
violence. A US helicopter crashed and the crew was missing.
Since the launching of third phase of the Crusades, Media coverage of
killings in Iraq had been scanty While the eyes of the world are elsewhere,
Baghdad is still dying and the daily toll is hitting record levels More
people are dying here probably more than 150 a day in the escalating
711

sectarian civil war between Shia and Sunni Muslims and the continuing war
with US troops than in the bombardment of Lebanon, reported Patrick
Cockburn.
Ken Silverstein reported, on average of more than 100 Iraqi civilians
was killed in June What do you call the situation in Iraq right now asked
one person familiar with the situation. The analysts know that its civil war,
but theres feeling at the top that (using that term) will complicate matters.
Gulf News said, while the majority is looking with concern as what
Israel is doing to its neighbours, the strife in Iraq continues. There, it is in all
but name, a civil warfor without some semblance of reason taking over, it
is difficult to see how the continuation of strife will ever cease.

OTHER ASPECTS
The ugly face of the occupation has been amply covered up by
shrewdly triggering sectarian fighting. The blame of bloodletting has been
shifted to the Muslims and accepted by many as such. Nevertheless,
occupation forces continued covering up the crimes committed by their
soldiers by conducting fake inquiries.
On 1st July, criminal investigations were ordered in two separate cases
on rape and killing by US soldiers. Four days later, Maliki wanted fresh
probe into the case of teenagers rape and killing of her family members.
We believe that the immunity granted to international forces has
emboldened them to commit such crimes andthere must be a review of
this immunity.
Steven Green, a former private with US Army, was charged in a
Federal Court with raping and murdering an Iraqi woman, after gunning
down three members of her family, including a five-year-old girl. Green was
honorably discharged from the army with a personality disorder. There is
no news about three of his buddies who conspired with Green.
Saddam trial was part of this cover-up ploy. On 13 th July, Saddam and
his co-defendants went on hunger strike. Saddam was hospitalized on 17 th
day of hunger strike. On 24th July, Saddam boycotted court hearing and three
days later, the trial was adjourned.
Puppets were another scapegoat for all the failings. John Hughes
said, if Iraqi security stand up on the promised schedule, and Iraqi
politicians succeed in knitting together a reasonable government, US troops

712

strength in Iraq could be reduced to five or six brigades from the present 14
by the end of next year.
Another condition for the proposed plan to succeed, however, is that
it be discussed with Iraqs new government, get their input, and be in line
with estimates of their own buildup of security forces. Khalilzad, however,
gave six months to Iraq to curb sectarianism.
A possible way out from the quagmire could be through
reconciliation. Charles Krauthammer wrote, insurgencies can be undone by
being co-opted. And that is precisely the strategy of Prime Minister Nouri alMaliki He intends to wean away elements of the insurgency by giving
them a stake in the new Iraqi order. These Sunni elements un-reconciled
tribal leaders and guerrilla factions may well decide that with neither side
having very good prospects of complete victory, accepting a place and some
power in the new Iraq is better alternative than perpetual war.
It would not apply to the foreign jihadists, who, unlike the Sunni
insurgents would join the new Iraq, dream of an Islamic state built on the
ruins of the current order. There is nothing to discuss with such people. The
only way to defeat them is to kill them, as we did (in case of) Abu Musab alZarqawi.
But killing them requires depriving them of their sanctuary.
Reconciliation-cum-amnesty gets disaffected Iraqi Sunni tribes to come over
to the governments side, drying up the sea in which the jihadists swim.
After all, we have found Zarqawi in heavily Sunni territory by means of
intelligence given to us by local Iraqis.
However, Shiite leaders were divided over reconciliation plan. AlHakim favoured extending an amnesty to insurgents who may have killed
US troops, which is strongly opposed by Maliki. So was the case back home
as reported by the Washington Times.
Democrats have seized the issue as an opportunity to demonstrate
that they are really tough on terror. So, on Sunday talk shows, viewers
were treated to hyperbole from Sens Harry Ried and Carl Levin, who
suggested that Mr Bush and the Iraqi government are going soft on
terrorists who target American troops.
In determining whether amnesty makes sense, Dan Senor, a former
Bush Administration adviser in Iraq, writing for National Review Online
suggests some questions that need to be asked, including: What will be the
reaction of the overwhelming majority of Iraqi Sunnis who chose to

713

participate in the insurgency? Will they resent enemies of democracy being

rewarded for their violence, or will they view it as a constructive effort to
end the violence? How would the Shiites and Kurds react to amnesty for the
Sunni militias who have been attacking them? Would pro-democratic forces
elsewhere in the region feel abandoned by an olive branch to such people?
Would neighbouring autocrats who have backed the insurrection in Iraq take
such conciliatory gestures as signs of weakness or strength? What can
individual insurgent leaders actually deliver in terms of halting the
violence?
Some quarters in America remained in favour of staying the course.
The Washington Post wrote, instead of talking about troop withdrawals, the
focus groups and strategists and think tanks like the Centre for American
Progress, headed by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, came up
with an idea they call redeployment a plan for removing large numbers
of American troops from Iraq to Kuwait or any other nearby country that
would take them, ready to race back into Iraq whenever the situation
threatened to become too calamitous The idea is similar to the withdrawal
of Israel troops from Gaza Strip.
Andrew F Krepinevich discussed the use of 4,000 military advisers in
Iraq. Despite their critical part in this war, the advisers are thinly spread.
Every Iraqi battalion, made up of some 500 troops, is assigned roughly a
dozen advisers, although the true requirement is closer to 30.
Revealingly, Lt Gen Martin Dempsey, who is in charge of training
and equipping the Iraqi forces, reports that Iraqi troops have never betrayed
their United States advisory teams to the insurgents. It is this kind of trust
that will be essential to waging effectively what the Bush Administration
now calls the Long War.
Advisers are also invaluable source of intelligence. They know
which Iraqi military leaders are the most talented and worthy of promotion
and which are incompetent and need to be relieved. They can help us
identify which officers are loyal and which have sectarian sympathies, which
are honest and which corrupt. Yet personnel of these units indulge in
sectarian killings in groups, which confirm that this is done in complete
knowledge of the US advisers.
James Hailer gave some ideas to US administration about utilization
of the detainees. I would argue that the release of the detainees would
provide new actionable intelligence and internal turmoil for al-Qaeda.

714

Most if not all of the detainees would go back to their old neighbourhoods,
and in the process of tracking them we might start to see some new faces.
I also have to believe that over time we have turned some of the
detainees, who may be willing to work with us once they are repatriated. He
supported his argument by quoting excerpts from the book
Counterinsurgency Warfare written by David Galula.
Let us move away from the bullets, bombs and prisons that have so
alienated those we are trying to convert, and instead move into the minds of
our opponents. If this truly is jihad, then let us sow the seeds of dissension,
and let al-Qaeda engage in an internal struggle to its own bitter end.
All said and done, overall situation was not promising for staying the
course. Japan, a strong ally of US, had completed troop pullout from Iraq on
17th July. There were reports of dissent within US troops.

CRITICISM OF WAR
The analysts focused on aimless killings in Iraq. Anas Shallal said,
how much is an Iraqi life worth? Answer is a lot less than an American or
British life, according to the amount of compensation paid to the relatives
of victims In the early months of the invasion, the United States paid
Iraqis $ 106,000 for 176 claims averaging about $ 600 per claim.
During the siege of Fallujah, where US soldiers killed 18 people and
wounded 78 during an April 2004 firefight, the American military
commander in the area paid $ 1,500 for each fatality and $ 500 for each
injury. Some of the compensations were less than what an American has to
pay for shooting a single head of some species of wild animals in America.
More recently the US paid $ 38,000 for Haditha victims family
members. That comes up to less than $ 1,600 per person killed. What a
bargain. The most any Iraqi has received to date for injury or property
damage is $ 15,000.
By comparison, the Libyan government recently settled a lawsuit for
victims of Pan Am 103, which was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in
1988. The Libyans paid $ 2.7 billion for 270 passengers with an average
payment of $ 10 million per death Last year a Seattle woman was
awarded $ 45,000 for the wrongful death of her cat.
Andrew J Bacevich wrote that during the days of invasion General
Frank had said, we dont do body counts. the analyst wrote, this disdain
715

for counting bodies, especially those of Iraqi civilians killed in the course
of US operations, is among the reasons why US forces find themselves in
another quagmire.
In the early days of insurgency, some US commanders appeared
oblivious to the possibility that excessive force might produce a backlash.
They counted on the iron fist to create an atmosphere conducive to good
behaviour.
The idea was not to distinguish between good and bad Iraqis,
but to induce compliance through intimidation. You have to understand
Arab mind, one company commander told the New York Times, displaying
all the self-assurance of Douglas Macarthur discoursing on Orientals in
1945. The only thing they understand is force
As the war enters its fourth year, how many innocent Iraqis have died
at American hands, not as a result of Haditha-like massacres but because of
accidents and error? It plays into the hands of the insurgents, advancing
their cause and undercutting our own.
Its not that we have no regard for Iraqi lives; its just that we have
much less regard for them. The current operations policy the payment
offered in those instances in which US forces do own up to killing an Iraqi
civilian makes the point.
The culture that, to put it mildly, has sought neither to understand nor
to emphasize with the people in Arab or Islamic worlds One at least ought
to acknowledge that in launching a war advertised as a high-minded
expression of US idealism, we have waded into a swamp of moral
ambiguity.
Moral questions aside, the toll of Iraqi noncombatant casualties has
widespread political implications. Misdirected violence alienated those we
are claiming to protect It fatally undermines the campaign to win hearts
and minds, suggesting to Iraqis and Americans alike that Iraqi civilians
and perhaps Arab and Muslims more generally are expendable.
Khaleej Times said, the killers reportedly went from door-to-door
looking for few Sunni families who have been left behind; others fled the
area long ago fearing for their lives. The killing spreeis said to have
continued for full eight hours and yet no help from Iraqi forces or the
occupation troops arrived despite desperate calls made to the ministries of
interior and defence.

716

And what are Iraqs new leaders doing to stop this reckless dance of
death, especially when they know as well as the rest of the world that its the
pro-government militias and Shia groups that are responsible for the
systematic program targeting the minority community. Has Maliki learnt no
lessons from the disastrous stint of his predecessor Ibrahim al-Jaafri?
The New York Times wrote, despite the elimination of Mr Zarqawi
and the new security drive, the daily carnage is increasing, especially in
Baghdad and especially against civilians. Last month, for the first time, the
nationwide civilian death toll exceeded 100 people per day. Despite the
increased presence of Sunni Arabs in the new cabinet, the political and
physical gulf between Sunnis and Shiites is wider then ever; the flight of
frightened families from religiously mixed neighbourhoods is further
cleaving the country in two.
One big reason why, sadly, is that Mr Maliki has failed to overcome
the great weakness he brought with him when he took office. The main
political and physical power behind his government comes from the armed
Shiite fundamentalist factions that swept last years elections and thereby
dominate Iraqs Parliament. The Kurdish parties that inflate the Shiites
majority have never much cared about what goes on outside Iraqi Kurdistan,
as long as their region maintains its de facto independence
Extensive killings on daily basis, obviously, led to the debate on
civil war. Nicholas Sambanis said, fighting a civil war is the way that
some societies build a state, and it is hard to imagine how there could have
been a smooth transition from Saddam Husseins dictatorship. Still, the
United States has clearly helped to create the conditions for Iraqs descent
into civil war.
Two failures are worth noting. First, a large literature on ostentatious
politics has shown that violent opposition groups gain legitimacy and public
support when the state uses indiscriminate violence or abuses civilians. This
is precisely what has happened in Iraq, with recent reports of civilian
abuses by the coalition.
Second, civil war studies have shown that insurgencies grow into
large wars when insurgents receive external assistance. The Americanled coalition simply has not had the manpower to quarantine those Iraqis
who have reportedly received assistance from neighbouring countries and
international terrorist entities.

717

But there is also good news. Iraq is better off than many countries in
the midst of a civil war: its income is relatively high, it has an educated
populace and it can count on abundant foreign assistance if fighting ends
Whether these factors will help to bring an end to the conflict in Iraq is an
open question. What is no longer an open question, however, is the nature of
the conflict. It is a civil war, not an insurgency. To be correct, it is an
engineered civil war.
The civil war has demonized the fighters resisting the foreign
occupation forces. Muhammad Zauq from Lahore said, the writer (Ikram
Sehgal), while praising the bravery of the occupation forces in Iraq, has
indiscriminately brought all the resistant forces in the folds of
extremists, insurgents and militants, Zarqawi might have been a brute,
terrorist or a thug, but would the writer like to throw light upon the
circumstances that led to the creation of people like Zarqawi.
Do not call the freedom fighters militants and insurgents. They are
fighting for the emancipation of their own homeland from the yolk of
slavery. They have waged jihad against those who have disguised their
intentions of capturing the oil resources under the cover of providing socalled human rights; justice and democracy to the Iraqis.
We definitely do not like Zarqawis among us but we should have
similar feelings for those stooges who are out to destroy world peace to
achieve petty economic benefits. We must remember that the superior
intelligence agencies that these forces have are masters in creating
shadowy characters like Zarqawi and tapes of Osama to achieve their own
political objectives.
In view of the foregoing, the analysts opposed prolonged
occupation. Neil Stormer was of the view that the biggest obstacle to
success in Americas efforts at preventing the spread of terrorism in Iraq
seems to be Americas occupation of Iraq. From the beginning, the
occupation has served as both a rallying point and a magnet for wouldbe jihadis. And the behaviour of the troops has only aggravated an already
dire situation: story after story of soldiers criminal behaviour and brutality
now undermine both their military and public relations efforts.
One of the American values is passing the buck. The New York
Times tried to pass it Maliki. Why were the tens of thousands of Iraqi and
American troops who were mobilized for this operation so ineffective at
stopping this weeks organized mayhem? And why are sectarian militias still
the ultimate power in Baghdads residential neighbourhoods?
718

Nobody expected Iraq to turn into the peaceable kingdom overnight.

But it is not too much to insist that this government live up to its own
fine words. Instead, for the past few days Mr Maliki has been almost an
invisible as he has been ineffective.
The Washington Post wrote, violence in Iraq has been accelerating
during the past several weeks, with an average of more than 100 civilian
deaths a day. Most have been in Baghdad, the city Mr Maliki vowed to
pacify five weeks ago in his administrations first major initiative. The
newspaper exonerated the occupation forces from sharing the blame.
More than 50,000 Iraqi and US troops have been deployed in
Baghdad, and some have begun targeting the Shiite militias that, even more
than the Sunni insurgents, are driving the violence. But the sectarian attacks
only grow bolder: Bloody bombings in the Shiite neighbourhoods are
answered with organized assaults on Sunni districts in which dozens of
civilians are gunned down.
How to rescue the situation? Mr Maliki and Mr Bush are likely to
discuss a reinforcement of US and Iraqi troops in Baghdad, which might
help. Those forces will have to be more aggressive in confronting Shiite as
well as Sunni forces especially the Iranian backed Mehdi Army The
most urgently needed action, however, must come from Maliki and other
political leaders If civil war has begun, it has yet no leaders. But the
politicians must act quickly and aggressively to reach accords on Iraqs
future.
Criticism of Iraq War has to end up at criticism of Bush. Gore
Vidal in his interview to David Barsamian, mentioned his observation about
Bush four years back. I was brought up in Washington. When you are
brought up in a zoo, you know whats going on in the monkey house. You
see a couple of monkeys loose and one is President and the one is Vice
President, you know its trouble; monkeys make trouble.
Commenting on the ongoing war, he said, the people dont matter
to this gang. They pay no attention. They think in totalitarian terms.
Theyve got the army. Theyve got Congress. Theyve got the judiciary.
Why should they worry? Let the chattering classes chatter. Bush is a thug. I
think there is something really wrong with him.
About conspiracy theories about 9/11, he replied, Im willing to
believe practically any mischief on the part of the Bush people. No, I dont
think they did it, as some conspiracy people think. Why? Because it was too

719

intelligently done. This is beyond the competence of Bush and Cheney

and Rumsfeld. They couldnt pull off a caper like 9/11. They are too
clumsy.
In reply to a question about his remark that the United States of
Amnesia, he said, no, its something in our rulers. They dont want us to
know anything. When youve got a press like we have, you no longer have
an informed citizenry.
In the context of the Democrats role as opposition party, he said, it
isnt an opposition party. I have been saying for the last thousand years that
the United States has only one party the property party. Its the party
of the big corporations, the party of money. It has two wings; one is
Democrat and the other is Republican.
The New York Times wrote, as Americas military experience in Iraq
grows even more nightmarish, it is becoming clear the President Bushs
strategy comes down to this: Keep holding to a failing course for the next
29 months and leave it to the next administration to clean up the mess.
The only responsible way out of Iraq involves all the things
President Bush refused to consider on the way in. That means enlisting
help from some of the same Arab neighbours and European allies whose
opinions and suggestions were scornfully ignored before the invasion.
Getting their assistance would be a humbling experience. Americans may
feel the war is going badly, but they have not been prepared to acknowledge
failure.
Americas allies have an interest in not seeing Iraq turn into a hive of
terrorists and a font of regional instability. However, before other nations
become involved they would certainly insist on a laundry list of American
concessions, from a share in war-related business of their contractors to an
all-out United States push for a renewed peace process among Israel,
Palestinians and their neighbours.
Richard Cohen said, I share the concern of what would happen to
Iraq if the United States pulled out precipitously. I share the concern over
what will happen if the United States stays. I share the concern of those
who say that no matter whether it stays or goes, the outcome will be the
same. I especially share the concern of those who say that the Bush
Administration does not have to plan to disengage and that rather than
confront the immensity of its mistake I pity Donald Rumsfeld if he should
ever lose the gift of denial it thinks that this or that adaptation to new

720

conditions will somehow change the outcome. It will not. The end was set at
the beginning. It is better that it come sooner rather than later.

TENACIOUS TEHRAN
While Israel was neutralizing Irans two allies, Hamas and Hezbollah,
militarily; diplomatic skirmishes over Irans nuclear programme continued.
On 29th June, China wanted quick response from Iran over incentives. Three
days later, Iran again rejected deadline on response to the proposals.
On 3rd June, western powers set July 12 as an informal deadline to
suspend uranium enrichment and agree to talks. On 12 th July, world powers
threatened to refer Iran to UNSC, if Tehran failed to respond quickly. Putin
urged patience with Iran.
On 15th July, Iran rejected demand to freeze nuclear work and about a
week later, Tehran warned that it would retaliate against tough UN
resolution. Meanwhile, Indias $20 billion deal to buy LNG from Iran ran
into trouble and negotiations on IPI gas pipeline project reached a deadlock.
On 30th July, Iran once again warned UN over proposed resolution.
Next day, UNSC passed a resolution giving Iran until August 31 to suspend
uranium enrichment; Iran rejected UNSC deadline.
The Crusaders kept up propaganda aimed at demonizing Iran
regime. Hadi Ghaemi prompted a point to the Crusaders. Last week
Iranians woke up to a startling piece of news: their government had
dispatched Tehrans notorious prosecutor general, Saeed Mortazavi, to
Geneva as a member of Irans delegation to the opening session of the new
United Nations Human Rights Council.
Iranians werent sure whether to laugh or cry. Mr Mortazavi is one
of the countrys highest profile rights violators. Human Rights Watch
urged Iran to remove him at once and asked other governments not to meet
the Iranian delegation while Mr Mortazavi remained a part of it.
The members of the Security Council and Germany, which are
engaged in nuclear negotiations with Iran, should include human rights
concerns on their agenda. As a confidence-building-measure, they should
demand that Iran improve its human rights record and that it cease
protecting violators like Mr Mortazavi.
Amir Taheri could not stay out of this sacred ritual even when
destruction of Lebanon was going on. Tehran believes that a victory for
721

Hezbollah in Lebanon will strengthen President Ahmadinejads bid for the

leadership of radical Islam. A number of recent events have made his attempt
to wrest control more likely. This week several Sunni theologists at the AlAzhar seminary in Cairo issued fatwas that allow Sunnis to fight
alongside and under the command of Shia Muslims.
There was no dearth of experts in the West contributing towards the
holy cause, but most of the Muslim World was not impressed by their
rhetoric. Jamshid Ahmadi rejected Simon Tisdalls views that the election
of Ahmedinejad, in a flawed electoral process manipulated by clergy and the
Guards Corps, is the latest attempt to suppress the democratic spirit of the
Iranian people The regime is struggling to enforce its position through
terror and manipulation.
As the international chatter of war against Iran increases, regime
change becomes ever more pressing, but cannot be achieved with US
cruise missiles or external forces. Most Iranians want change, but it will only
be achieved by Iranians themselves together with international solidarity and
understanding.
Akbar Ganji wrote, the American policy of confronting the Iranian
regimes nuclear adventurism is correct. But the rationale for opposing this
adventurism should not be that the mullahs oppose the West and the
United State. The Wests double standard on non-proliferation is not
defensible. The entire Middle East must be declared a nuclear free zone.
Opposition to the dangerous process that has begun in the region a process
that the Islamic Republic has helped turn into a crisis must be based on a
more general call first for regional, then for global, nuclear disarmament.
Simon Tisdall quoted Iranian spokesman to explain Iranian
viewpoint on the US approach. Hamid Reza Asefi, the foreign ministry
spokesman, claimed in turn that the US was continuing to assist the Iraqbased Mujahedin-e-Khaleq and its political wing, a terrorist grouping
formerly backed by Saddam and linked to numerous outrages inside Iran.
The Americans are shouting about terrorism. But on the other hand,
they have close links with a terrorist group Mr Asefi said. This is the most
hated group in Iran. They are definitely trying to destabilize our security,
directly and indirectly The US was also stirring up trouble among Irans
Kurdish, Azeri and other minorities with British guidance, he claimed.
Our intelligence says this foreign intervention is quite clear. US interference
and meddling is quite obvious.

722

Mustafa El-Labbad wrote, current Iranian-US relations emerged in a

complex climate of geo-strategic considerations, cantered around Irans
regional role and how this corresponds to the demands of US interests. Iran
possesses a number of vital assets that underpin its claim to regional
power and that make Iran an important player in the international
community.
Iran has always been adept at the geopolitical game, capable of
playing its cards astutely to maximize its margin of manoeuvrability and
ultimately to expand the boundaries of the regional role it is permitted within
the framework of the international order.
Sidney A Weiss dwelled on rejecting Iranian viewpoint on Jews and
Jewish state. As an American Jew visiting Iran, I was apparently made an
irresistible target. Zionist Israel, an Iranian official instructed me, was
the root cause of all problems in the Middle East; a Western colonial
imposition on Muslim lands that must be reversed.
It is Irans own fault, I replied. If Cyrus the Great hadnt freed the
Jews from Persian slavery 2,500 years ago and told them to return to
Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple, there wouldnt be an Israel. Sidney
indirectly claimed that Israel existed even before the Christ and
Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Them).
Animosity between Iran and Israel is an historical aberration. Before
Irans 1979 Islamic Revolution, ancient cultural bonds and common
strategic interests between Persians and Jews made Iran and Israel
close allies. He blamed Ayatollahs for all the trouble without naming them.
If he knew his history, Ahmedinejad would recall that Iranian
diplomats in Europe saved thousands of Jews from the Holocaust and
that Iran served as an escape route for Iraqi Jews fleeing to Israel after the
1948 war for Israeli independence. In one sentence he argued that the
Holocaust is a reality and Iran has helped in creation of Israel; both of which
are now denied by Nejad.
Common Sunni Arab enemies made Persians and Jews close
friends for the next three decades. Irans Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlvi
depended on Israel for a steady stream of arms and intelligence. Israel
depended on Iran as part of its periphery policy of security alliances with
non-Arabs on the Middle Eastern periphery along with Turkey, Ethiopia and
Lebanese Christians. At that time Iran was strong ally of America and Arabs
were considered a threat to watchdogs kennel in the middle of their lands.

723

Today, Arabs have reconciled with presence of the dog in their midst, but
Iran, ruled by Islamists, is against it.
Persian Iran sat out all the three Arab-Israeli wars and even
during the Arab oil boycott of the 1970s, continued supplying Israel with
oil. The 100,000 Jews in Iran helped sustain robust Iranian-Israeli trade.
Even after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeinis Islamic Revolution
severed these ties and sent most Iranian Jews fleeing, overlapping interests
allowed these arch-enemies to do business. Mutual animosity toward Iraq
and Israels desire to preserve influence with Tehran moderates led
Israel to supply weapons to the Islamic Republic well into the 1980s
Israels supply of weapons to Iran and America similar assistance to Iraq
was part of the same scheme; to keep the two countries fighting. It was
designed to weaken the potential threats to Israel, or in other words two
birds were being killed with one stone.
Flickers of an Iranian-Israeli rapprochement continued even
during the heightened tensions of the 1990s, despite Irans support for
Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinian militants and the bombings of the Israeli
embassy and Jewish cultural centre in Argentina.
Although hardliners in Tehran, Jerusalem and Washington have
sabotaged attempts at dialogue at every turn, Iran and Israels common
interests endure. Both have a vital interest in avoiding Israel attacks on
Iranian facilities and preventing the fracturing of Iraq along ethnic lines. In
the event of a wider regional war between Sunnis and Shiites, Iran and Israel
could once again find themselves with a common adversary.
He said many things: Iran must come to terms with Israel to avoid
Israeli attack; if the Crusaders at some stage decide to disintegrate Iraq, Iran
would need Israels help; and Sunni Arabs have been identified as common
enemy in case of larger war between Shiites and Sunnis of the region.
He tried to make a case for forming an Iran-Israel Axis against
common enemy; the Arabs. The Crusaders have been and continue
working for Arab-Iran perpetual confrontation for the same purpose. If
the two sides, Arabs in particular, understand this point and resort to
peaceful co-existence with Iran, they can work for ending US military
presence which is the root-cause of American imperialism and all the related
problems.
As regards delay in responding to proposals of incentives, ElBaradei
explained the reason in his interview to Der Spiegel. The Iranians tell me

724

that they need a few more weeks to take a close look at everything. Last
weeks announcement from Tehran that they are seriously considering the
package and that they view it as a positive approach to finding a diplomatic
solution is encouraging, but there is mutual mistrust between Iran and
the West. It will take time to get past this.
We must be patient. A few weeks wont make a difference. The issue
is not Irans nuclear program, but regional security. It would be fatal if the
Iranians were to miss this great opportunity. It would lead to a spiral of
escalation

Military option was never ruled out formally. Some enthusiasts

even from outside the West have been indirectly urging for this option.
Khaleej Times indulged in instigating the Crusaders. There appears to be
thinking within Irans ruling circles that with the US busy in Iraq and Bushs
dwindling popularity ratings, Washington will not be able to engage in
another military adventure. But such thinking is misplaced, as the US will
protect its interests at any price, and if it sees them being threatened, it
would not hesitate to embark on another mission, risky as it might be. Even
Saddam did not believe till quite late in the day that the US would
attack Iraq, but it did because Washington saw Saddam as a threat to its
interests in the region.
Hindustan Times wrote, The endgame in the Iranian nuclear
imbroglio may have begun, going by the UNSC resolution passed last
Monday, giving Tehran a month to suspend its uranium enrichment and
reprocessing activities. The draft reportedly received a 14-1 vote, with Qatar
the sole dissenter.
Iran doesnt have too many options, especially since its tactics have
brought on unprecedented unity between the US and the EU. Continuing
refusal to come up with a constructive response could also get the Russians
and Chinese on board a tougher regime against Iran. The choices are not
that complicated, but it is up to Tehran to make them.
Seymour M Hersh opined that the military circles in the US were not
so enthusiastic about this option. Bush talked about freedom for the Iranian
people, and he added, Irans leaders have a clear choice. There was an
unspoken threat: the US Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force,
has been drawing up plans, at the Presidents direction, for a major
bombing campaign in Iran.

725

Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged

the presidents plans. The generals and admirals have told the administration
that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Irans
nuclear program.
A crucial issue in the militarys dissent, the officers said, is the fact
that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific
evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are
not sure what to hit.
The military leadership is also raising tactical arguments against
the proposal for bombing Iran, many of which are related to the
consequences of Iraq Some conservatives are arguing that Americas
position in Iraq would improve if Iran chose to retaliate there, according to a
government consultantbecause Iranian interference would divide the
Shiites into pro- and anti-Iranian camps, and unify the Kurds and the
Sunnis.
Irans geography would also complicate an air war. The senior
military official said that, when it came to air strikes, this is not Iraq, which
is fairly flat, except in the northeast. Much of Iran is akin to Afghanistan in
terms of topography and flight mapping a pretty tough target.
The Qatari government is very scared of what America will do in
Iran, and scared to death about what Iran would do in response. Irans
message to the oil-producing Gulf States, the retired diplomat said, has
been that it will respond, and you are on the wrong side of history.
Having explained the pros and cons of military option, he added,
Washington had no other good options. The US has done what its
international partners have asked it to do, said Patrick Clawson Americas
allies in the Gulf also believe that an attack on Iran would endanger them,
and many American military planners agree.
A European diplomat told me that its government would be willing to
discuss Irans security concerns a dialogue he said Iran offered
Washington three years ago. The diplomat added that no one wants to be
faced with the alternative if the negotiations dont succeed: either accept the
bomb or bomb them.
The Iranian regimes calculations about its survival also depend on
internal political factor several current and former officials I spoke to
expressed doubt that President Bush would settle for a negotiated
resolution of the nuclear crisis.
726

The Israelis believe that Iran must be stopped as soon as possible,

because, once it is able to enrich uranium for fuel, the next step enriching
it to the 90% level needed for a nuclear bomb is merely a mechanical
process. Israel intelligence, however has also failed to provide specific
evidence about secret sites in Iran
If the talks do break down, and the administration decides on
military action, the generals will, of course, follow their orders but
some officers have been pushing for what they call the middle way, a mix
of options that require a number of Special Forces teams and air cover to
protect them to send into Iran to grab the evidence so the world will know
what Iran is doing.
Hamid Ansari observed that the both sides now concede the need
for talks. Beyond this, perceptions diverge. The US (a) retains a formal
insistence on compliance suspension of enrichment before discussions;
(b) may wish to defer regime change for the moment in return for a change
in the behaviour of the regime; (c) may attempt to use the signal for talks as
a means of pressure on the regime to cause internal dissensions; (d) is
unwilling to rule out the military option; (e) is not willing to talk about
security guarantees; and (f) is patient in the face of initial Iranian reactions
but wants its range of options to be registered.
Henry A Kissinger has other ideas about talks. Iran has reacted to
American offer to enter negotiations with taunts, and has inflamed
tensions in the region. Even if the Hezbollah raids from Lebanon into Israel
and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers were not planned in Tehran, they
would not have occurred had their perpetrators thought them inconsistent
with Iranian strategy? The same is applicable more appropriately to Israeli
aggression against Lebanon.
Up to now Iran has been playing for time. The mullahs apparently
seek to accumulate as much nuclear capability as possible so that, even were
they to suspend enrichment, they would be in position to use the threat of
resuming their weapons effort as a means to enhance their clout in the
region.
Given the pace of technology, patience can easily turn into
evasion. The Six will have to decide how serious they will be in insisting on
their convictions. Specially, the Six will have to be prepared to act decisively
before the process of technology makes the objective of stopping uranium
enrichment irrelevant. He was telling Bush to hurry.

727

A suspension of enrichment of uranium should not be the end of

the process. A next step should be the elaboration of a global system of
nuclear enrichment to take place in designated centre around the world under
international control as proposed for Iran in Russia.
It is important to express such a policy in precise objective
capable of transparent verification. A geopolitical dialogue is not a
substitute for an early solution of the nuclear enrichment crisis. That must be
addressed separately, rapidly and firmly.
The Washington Post coaxed Russia and China. For China and even
more for Russia, this is a moment of truth. Both countries value their
seats at the worlds top table. Both are permanent members of the UN
Security Council, and this weekend Russia will host the Group of Eight
summit of leaders of the worlds richest countries. But global leadership
brings with it a responsibility to grapple seriously with global problems, of
which nuclear proliferation is among the most pressing. If Iran is not ready
to suspend its nuclear program in exchange for economic and political
carrots, then it must face the stick of UN sanctions.
Irans excuses are designed merely to buy time for its uranium
enrichment program. China and Russia now have to decide whether to
tolerate this prevarication any further. As he hosts the G-8 summit in St
Petersburg this weekend, is Russian President Vladimir Putin going to
contribute to the solution of Irans nuclear crisis? Or will he instead prolong
it?

CONCLUSION
Since the occupation of Iraq, US-led forces have been sponsoring
Shiite squads to suppress Sunni Arabs. They succeeded in bleeding Iraq and
at the same time disrupting the resistance against occupation. But, the
resultant sectarian strife/civil war brought bad name to the Crusaders as
well, and now they are blaming Maliki for not controlling them.
Hamas and Hezbollah were identified as major threats to Israel in case
US invades Iran. They are being destroyed/neutralized by Israel with full
support of the Crusaders. It was also visualized that Mehdi Army and other
Shiite could create problems for the occupation forces; hence after using
them as counter balance for Sunni Arabs, Maliki is now being pressed to
disarm them.

728

Lebanon war constitutes part of the plan for regime change in Iran.
The Crusaders will wait for its outcome, reassess the situation, and decide as
how to deal with Iran. However, the way the war is going, it seemed that the
US has to wait for little longer than it would wish to.
10th August 2006

PHASE III WEEK V

On 9th August, 15 soldiers were killed in fighting and 12 Lebanese
were killed in air strikes. Three Palestinians were killed in Gaza. Israel
inducted three more divisions and changed the commander after the cabinet
approved expansion of ground offensive. Tel Aviv informed the civilized
world that new offensive would require about a month to be completed.
Lebanon will be graveyard for Zionists, said Nasrallah. He told Arabs to
leave Haifa in view of rocket attacks.
The Crusaders continued providing time to Israel by raising fake
differences. A British MP resigned in protest against use of British airports
by US airplanes carrying arms and ammunition for Israel. Chavez wanted to
cut ties with Israel.
Next day, Israel claimed capture of a key town located 5 km from
border and killing 50 fighters. Hezbollah claimed destroying several Israeli
tanks. Two Lebanese were killed in air strike. Gaza Strip continued suffering
humanitarian crisis. At least 171 Palestinians were killed to date.
Israel pressed on psychological war to drive wedge between Lebanese
people and Hezbollah. It announced that plans for a deeper ground assault
into southern Lebanon were on hold to give diplomacy a chance. US
Assistant Secretary of State paid another visit to Beirut. Malaysia urged
countries of the Middle East to cut ties with Israel. Ahmadinejad accused the
West of dragging feet on ceasefire.
On 11th August, twenty-two Lebanese were killed in Israeli strikes,
including one on a convoy of displaced persons. One Israeli soldier was
killed and another wounded in fighting and 7 Israeli were wounded in rocket
attack.

729

UN human rights chief called for a United Nations probe of attacks on

civilians in Lebanon. Poll in Israel showed a sharp drop in support for the
Israeli government over handling of offensive in Lebanon. France and the
US agreed on the draft resolution.
Next day, nineteen Lebanese including six soldiers were killed in air
strikes and Hezbollah fired 20 rockets into Israel. As the offensive was
pressed on, heli-borne landings were carried out. Hezbollah claimed killing
17 Israeli soldiers and knocking out 21 tanks. Israel accepted wounding of
its 54 soldiers and claimed killing 30 Hezbollah fighters.
Annan scolded world powers for the time taken to reach a resolution.
All members of this council beware that this inability to act sooner has
badly shaken the worlds faith in its authority. HRW urged US to deny Israel
cluster bombs.
UNSC adopted a resolution which demanded end to hostilities. It also
envisaged deployment of up to 15,000 UNIFIL in Lebanon with mandate to
take all necessary action needed to ensure that area is not utilized for
hostile activities of any kind. Lebanese government will deploy troops in
area controlled by Hezbollah to prevent any weapons from flowing to the
Hezbollah. Israel is to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon when
fighting stops in parallel with the deployment of Lebanese and UN troops.
States are to bar the delivery of weapons to any entity or individual in
Lebanon. It calls for unconditional release of Israeli soldiers and
encourages settling the issue of Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel.
Annan will to develop proposals within 30 days for disarmament of militia
and delineation of borders including Shebaa Farms.
Lebanon and Hezbollah accepted the resolution with reservations.
Israel increased the strength of troops in southern Lebanon after the adoption
of resolution Israeli general said the fighting could go on at least for one
more week.
On 13th August, on the eve of ceasefire, Israel carried out heaviest
bombing of the war across Lebanon killing 13 people. Five Israeli soldiers
were killed in fighting. Israelis turned on Olmert after failing to deliver total
victory.
Israel approved UN resolution but vowed to use force to prevent
Hezbollah from rearming and clear the fighters positions out of southern
Lebanon and termed all these operations defensive in nature. UN officials
and western diplomats feared Israels broad definition of defensive actions
could lead to resurgence in large-scale fighting.
730

Next day, seven Lebanese were killed in last minute bombing before
ceasefire. Two Israeli soldiers were killed in fighting. Three Palestinians
were killed in Israeli strike. Israel announced to continue air and sea
blockade.
Displaced people started returning. Hezbollah claimed victory in war.
Bush blamed Hezbollah terrorists for triggering war that resulted in
destruction of Lebanon. He also accused Iran and Syria of sponsoring
Hezbollah.
On 15th August, Israel started pulling back tanks from southern
Lebanon. It was not pulling back. It was only reducing over-induction of
forces to address space-troops ratio so that unnecessary targets are not
presented. Olmert vowed to hunt down Hezbollah leaders. He claimed that
there is no more state within state. Peacekeepers, mostly from NATO
countries, will start arriving in about ten days.
Forty dead bodies were retrieved from debris. Siniora asked five bigs
for ending of blockade. Nasrallah refused to disarm militia. Hezbollah
victory was celebrated in Tehran. Assad claimed that Hezbollah has
destroyed US plans to reshape the Middle East. Germany termed his claim
as negative contribution and cancelled trip to Damascus.
Media reported the costs of war. Israeli Air Force attacked 7,000
targets and Navy fired 2,500 shells. In Lebanon, 1,110 people were killed
and 3,700 wounded. Losses include 35 soldiers and policemen and 5 UN
observers. Israel claimed killing 350 Hezbollah fighters; Hezbollah
acknowledged 80 dead. About one million were displaced and 60,000
foreigners were evacuated. Damage to infrastructure was about $ 2.5 billion.
Central Bank spent $ 1 billion to keep the currency stable.
Hezbollah fired 3,970 rockets. Israel lost 157 persons, including 40
civilians; 1,000 civilians and 450 soldiers were wounded. About 300,000
Israelis were displaced. Economic losses were estimated to be $1.5 billion.
GDP may fall by $ 11.5 billion.

AGGRESSION
Israels belief in the invincibility of its superior weaponry with a
hubris that was enhanced by the amateurship in military affairs of Olmert
and Peretz, the present captains of its crew led the Israelis to believe that
they could force the Hezbollah into capitulation, wrote Gilbert Achcar,
or push the Lebanese to the brink of a new civil war, by taking the whole of
731

Lebanon hostage, destroying the countrys civilian infrastructure and

pouring on its Shiite-populated areas a deluge of bombs. Israel deliberately
flattened whole neighbourhoods and villages on a pattern that resembles
some of the bombings of WW2 or a Fallujah on a much larger scale, and
accordingly much more visible. Israels new war on Lebanon displayed the
murderous fury of an act of revenge against the only population that
managed to oblige it to withdraw from an occupied territory.
The criminal behaviour of the Israeli armed forces in Lebanon,
with regard to the international conventions defining what constitute war
crimes, went beyond those that the US perpetrated on a mass scale in its
post-Vietnam military endeavours In this, Israels onslaught on Lebanon
amounted to a peculiar instance of the so-called extraordinary rendition
policy.
Shamelessly exploiting one more time the horrible memory of the
Nazi judeacide an exploitation which reached new peaks in indecency
on the occasion of the ongoing war Israels leaders believed that they
would thus be able to deflect any criticism from the Western powers a.k.a.
the international community.
And although the resources for this exploitation are unmistakably
depleting with every new threshold in brutality that Israel crosses, it is
still effective indeed: any other state in the world that would have attacked a
neighbouring country, deliberately committing war crimes concentrated in
time on the way Israel is doing in Lebanon would have brought upon itself
an outcry of a magnitude that bears no relation to the faint and timid
reproaches made to Israel on the theme it is over-doing it.
But for all that, Israels brutal aggression was not able to succeed.
On the contrary, it has already proved to be what Zeev Sternhell described
somewhat euphemistically as Israels most unsuccessful war concluding
with this bitter statement.
It is frightening to think that those who decided to embark on the
present war did not even dream of its outcome and its destructive
consequences in almost every possible realm, of the political and
psychological damage, the serious blow to the governments credibility, and
yes the killing of children in vain. The cynicism being demonstrated by
government spokesmen, official and otherwise, including several military
correspondents, in the face of the disaster suffered by the Lebanese, amazes
even someone who has long since lost many of his youthful illusions

732

Jonathan Cook wrote about civilian killings in the war. The damage
inflicted by the ball bearings is not in itself proof that Hezbollah is trying to
kill Israeli civilians, any more than Israels use of far more lethal cluster
bombs is proof that it wants to kill Lebanese civilians The second
criticism made by HRW is that because Hezbollahs rockets are rudimentary
and lack sophisticated guidance systems they are as good as indiscriminate.
This conclusion is wrong both logically and semantically.
This, according to Human Rights watch, still makes Hezbollahs
rocket attacks war crimes. That may be true, but it of course also means
Israels missile strikes and bombardment of Lebanon are war crimes on
the same or a greater scale.
Noam Chomsky in his interview to Kaven Afrasiabi, while answering
a question about legal and moral justification of the Israeli attack, said: The
invasion itself is a serious breach of international law, and major war
crimes are being committed as it proceeds. There is no legal justification.
The moral justification is supposed to be that capturing soldiers in a
cross-border raid, and killing others, is an outrageous crime The day
before, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother,
and sent them to the Israeli prison system The major media did not even
bother reporting it.
That fact alone demonstrates, with brutal clarity, that there is no
moral justification for the sharp escalation of attacks in Gaza or the
destruction of Lebanon, and that the Western show of outrage about
kidnapping is cynical fraud.
Regarding Israels right to self-defence, he said: Israel certainly has
a right to defend itself, but no state has the right to defend occupied
territories. When the World Court condemned Israels separation wall,
even a US Justice, Judge Buergenthal, declared that any part of it built to
defend Israeli settlements is ipso facto in violation of international
humanitarian law, because the settlements are illegal.
Gaza and the West Bank are recognized to be a unit, by the United
States and Israel as well. Therefore, Israel still occupies Gaza, and cannot
claim self-defence in territories it occupies in either of the two parts of
Palestine. It is Israel and the United States that are radically violating
international law. They are now seeking to consummate longstanding plans
to eliminate Palestinian national rights for good.

733

About US refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire, he said: It is

correct from the point of view of those who want to ensure that Israel, by
now virtually an offshore US military base and high-tech centre,
dominates the region, without any challenge to its rule as it proceeds to
destroy Palestine. And there are side advantages, such as eliminating any
Lebanese-based deterrent if US-Israel decide to attack Iran.
During the week, Uri Avnery wrote two articles on Israeli aggression.
In first article, he said, the Chief-of-Staff, Dan Halutz, has found the culprit:
Udi Adam, the chief of the Northern Command. He has practically
dismissed him in the middle of the battle. That is the old ploy of the thief
shouting Stop thief! After all, it is obvious that the person mainly to blame
for the failures of the war is Halutz himself, with his foolish belief that
Hezbollah could be defeated by aerial bombardment alone.
On the eve of his downgrading, Udi Adam publicly accused the
government of tying his hands. Meaning: the government is guilty. Ehud
Olmert did not remain silent and declared that the army had not submitted
any plans for widening the campaign. Thats to say: if you are incompetent,
dont blame me!
To justify himself, Olmert added a significant sentence: From the
first day of the war, the government has not refused the army a single
request! In other words, it is the Chief-of-Staff who makes policy and
conducts the war, while the political leadership just rubber stamps
everything that the army requests.
According to the reports, the Israeli army has been preparing for this
war for more than three years. The last exercise took place a month before
the war started and included the invasion of Lebanon by land forces. It is
clear that the command did not anticipate a campaign that would last for four
weeks and more This just confirms the dictum that even the best war
plan does not survive the first day of war.
It is quite clear that the army commands wonderful plan did not
include the defense of the rear within rocket range. There was no plan for
the solution of the hundred and one problems emanating from the attack
on Hezbollah: from the protection of the civilian population from thousands
of missiles to the necessary economic arrangements when a third of the
countrys population is living under bombardment and is paralyzed.
For this war is being fought on the backs of the weak, who cannot
afford to evacuate themselves from the rockets area. The rich and well-todo have got out long ago in Israel as well as in Lebanon The poor, the
734

old, the sick and the handicapped remain in the shelters. They are the main
sufferers. But that does not cause them to oppose the war. On the contrary,
they are the most vociferous group in Israel demanding to go to the end, to
smash them, to wipe them out.
That is not new, either: the weakest in the society always want to
feel that they belong to the strongest nation. Those who have nothing
become the biggest patriots. And they are also the main victims Those
who initiated and planned the war cynically flatter the inhabitants of the
North, who are stuck there, calling them heroes and lauding their
wonderful steadfastness.
The Soviet bloc has collapsed and the UN has become an arm of the
US State Department. Kofi Annan has become a janitor and the real boss
is the US delegate, John Bolton, a raving neocon and therefore a great
friend of Israel. He wants the war to go on.
The name of the American game is: to give the Israeli army more
days, and perhaps more weeks, to go on with the war, to pursue the mirage
of victory, while pretending to make great efforts to stop the war. It seems
that Olmert has promised Bush to win after all, if given time.
The new proposals of the Beirut government have lit red lights in
Jerusalem. The Lebanese government proposes to deploy 15 thousand
Lebanese troops along the border, declare a ceasefire and get the Israeli
troops out of Lebanon. That is exactly what the Israeli government
demanded at the start of the war. But now it looks like a danger. It could
stop the war without an Israeli victory.
Thus a paradoxical situation has arisen: the Israeli government is
rejecting a proposal that reflects its original war aims, and instead
demands an international force, which it objected to strenuously at the start
of the war. Thats what happens when you start a war without clear and
achievable aims. Everything gets mixed up.
On the other side, the broadcasts prove that the military
commentators know exactly how to wage the war. They have forceful
opinions and plenty of expert advice. They know when to advance and
where, which troops to deploy and what weapons to use. So why not let
them conduct the war?
The battery of generals that appears every evening on all TV
channels in order to give a briefing (a.k.a. propaganda) to the nation, are all
male. They bring with them a token woman, a real beauty who bears the title

735

of army spokesperson and serves mostly for diversification. The

commentators on TV are, of course, tough guys, and so are almost all the
other speakers.
The rule of males is underlined by the fact that the Foreign Ministry
is headed by a woman. Since the foundation of Israel, the Ministry of
Defence has been the realm of he-men, who look with disdain upon the
Foreign Office, which is always considered feeble and effete. Now, too, the
Foreign Office is a sickly limb of the defence establishment. Tsipi Livni,
who once aroused hopes, is a parrot of the army as Condoleezza Rice
is the parrot of Bush.
War is, of course, a matter for men. Thats how it was from the
beginning of the human race, and perhaps even before. A tribe of baboons,
for example, when faced with danger, automatically adopts a defensive
formation: old males, women and children in the centre, young males in a
circle around them. There is only one difference between them and us:
their leader is always the wisest and the most experienced of the tribe.
The love of the human male for war a phenomenon we have had
the opportunity to observe from close up these last few days is connected
not only with this biological heritage. War assures the total dominance of
the males over society. It also assures the total dominance of the generals
over the state.
I am going now to say something I did not think I would ever utter: It
is quite possible that we would not have slid into this foolish war if Ariel
Sharon were in charge. Fact: he did not attack Hezbollah after the
withdrawal in 2000. One attempt was enough for him.
The lust for war also explains the talking choir of the hundreds of exgenerals, who think and talking in unison in favour of the war. A cynic
would say: whats the big deal; after all its the army that gave them their
standing in society. They are important only as long as the conflict between
Israel and the Arab World continues. The conflict guarantees their status.
They have no interest whatsoever in its resolution.
In second article, he wrote, on 32nd day of the war, Hezbollah is still
standing and fighting. That itself is a stunning feat: a small guerrilla
organization, with a few thousand fighters, is standing up to one of the
strongest armies in the world and has not been broken after a month of
pulverizing.

736

If a light-weight boxer is fighting a heavy-weight champion and is

still standing in the 12th round, the victory is his whatever the count of
points says. In the test of results the only one that counts in war the
strategic and tactical command of Hezbollah is decidedly better than
that of our own army.
Clearly, Hezbollah has prepared well for this war while the
Israeli command has prepared for a quite different war. On the level of
individual fighters, the Hezbollah is not inferior to our soldiers, neither in
bravery nor in initiative.
The main guilt for the failure belongs with General Dan Halutz. I say
guilt and not merely responsibility, which comes with the job. He is
living proof of the fact that an inflated ego and a brutal attitude are not
enough to create a competent Chief-of-Staff. The opposite may be true.
Halutz started this war with the bluster of an Air Force officer. He
believed that it was possible to crush Hezbollah by aerial bombardment,
supplemented by artillery shelling from land and sea For a week he killed
and devastated, until it became clear to everybody that this method achieves
the opposite strengthens Hezbollah, weakens its opponents within Lebanon
and throughout the Arab World and destroyed the world-wide sympathy
Israel enjoyed at the beginning of the war. When he reached this point,
Halutz did not know what to do next.
After the fourth week, when he was requested to submit a plan to the
government, it was unbelievably primitive. If the enemy had been a regular
army, it would have been a bad plan. Just pushing the enemy back is
hardly a strategy at all. But when the other side is a guerrilla force, this
is simply foolish.
Now he is trying to achieve a token victory, occupying empty space
as far from the border as possible, after the UN has already called for an end
to the hostilities The Chief-of-Staff does not act in vacuum. As
Commander-in-Chief he has indeed a huge influence, but he is also merely
the top of the military pyramid. This war casts dark shadow on the whole
upper echelon of our army.
More than once it has been said in this column that an army that has
been acting for many years as a colonial police force against the
Palestinian population terrorists, women and children and spending its
time running after stone-throwing boys, cannot remain an efficient army.
The test of results confirms this.

737

History teaches that defeat can be a great blessing for an army. A

victorious army rests on its laurels, it has no motive for self-criticism, it
degenerates, and its commanders become careless and lose the next war.
We, as people of peace, have a great interest in changing the military
leadership. First, because it has a huge impact on the forming of policy and,
as we just saw, irresponsible commanders can easily drag the
government into dangerous adventures.
And second, because even after achieving peace we shall need an
efficient army at least until the wolf lies down with the lamb, as the
prophet Isaiah promised. (And not in the Israeli version: No problem. One
only has to bring a new lamb every day.) The main lesson of the war,
beyond all military analysis, lies in the five words we inscribed on our
banner from the very first day: There is no military solution! Even a
strong army cannot defeat a guerrilla organization, because the guerrilla is a
political phenomenon.

RESISTANCE
Fouad Siniora gave his governments viewpoint in an article. Israel
says this war is against Hezbollah, not Lebanon. But the Israeli terror is
inflicted on all Lebanese. The indiscriminate murder of more than 1,100
Lebanese civilians (a third of them children), the massacres and cleansing
of villages and the wanton destruction of our infrastructure are nothing short
of a criminal. One quarter of our population has been displaced.
For all this carnage and death, and on behalf of all Lebanese, we
demand an international inquiry into Israels criminal actions in
Lebanon and insist that Israel pay compensation for its wanton destruction
On behalf of all Lebanese, I insist on reparations.
Israel seems to think that its attacks will sow discord among the
Lebanese. This will never happen. Israel should know that the Lebanese
people will remain steadfast and united in the face of this latest Israeli
aggression its seventh invasion just as they were during nearly two
decades of brutal occupation. The peoples will to resist grows ever stronger
with each village demolished and each massacre committed.
I have proposed a comprehensive seven-point peace plan, rooted
in international law, whichcalls for an immediate, unconditional and
comprehensive ceasefire and the release of Lebanese and Israeli detainees;

738

the withdrawal of the Israeli army behind the established blue line between
the two states; a UN commitment to put the Shebaa Farms area
As part of comprehensive plan, and empowered by strong domestic
political support and the unanimous backing of the cabinet, the Lebanese
government decided to deploy the Lebanese armed forces in southern
Lebanon as the sole domestic military force in the area, alongside UN forces
there, the moment Israel pulls back to the international border.
The resolution to this war must respect international law and UN
resolutions, not just those selected by Israel, a state that deserves its
reputation as a pariah because of its consistent disdain for and rejection of
international law and the wishes of the international community for over a
half century.
Lebanon calls, once again, on the United Nations to bring about
an immediate ceasefire to relieve the beleaguered people of Lebanon. Only
then can the root causes of this war Israeli occupation of Lebanese
territories and its perennial threat to Lebanons security, as well as
Lebanons struggle to regain full sovereignty over all its territory be
addressed.
The draft UN Security Council resolution proposed by the US
and France failed to address the key points of our plan, and was rejected
by all Lebanese. The idea of an international force being sent to Lebanon
directly challenges our sovereignty, and we can never accept that.
I believe that a political resolution rooted in international law and
based on these seven points will lead to long-term stability. If Israel
would realize that the people of Middle East cannot be cowed into
submission, that they aspire only to live in freedom and dignity, it could also
be a stepping stone to a final solution of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict,
which has plagued our region for 60 years.
If Israel would realize that the peoples of the Middle East cannot
be cowed into submission, that their will to resist grows ever stronger with
each village destroyed and each massacre committed, it could also be
stepping stone to a final solution of the wider Arab-Israel conflict
An odd aspect of the conflict is that the state under attack has been
unable to respond in its defence. Hezbollah is fending off attacks against
itself but is unable to defend Lebanon. There are different viewpoints
explaining the anomaly, wrote Naman Sattar.

739

But does it represent Lebanon when it is targeting Israel? It dared

Israel to war, but is it in a position to defend Lebanon? The ultimate and
difficult question is whether Hezbollah is to be seen as distinct from the
government of Lebanon, with the Caveat that it is seen as a terrorist
organization.
Israel is keen on eliminating or disarming Hezbollah and claims it
has killed 200 and is weakening it every day. It shuns a ceasefire, on which
the US is not keen either. The US position being that a ceasefire without
addressing the root cause is futile.
It is obvious that neither is able to overcome the other; Hezbollah can
only fire rockets on Israel and Israel can bomb Hezbollah positions, avoiding
a total war. It is clear that the Israeli action cannot put an end to
Hezbollah. But that would not prevent Israel going after Hezbollah,
attacking its strongholds and punishing its supporters.
Shorn of emotional dimensions, Israels targeting of Hezbollah in
Lebanon and unabashed US support for Israel is understandable: Hezbollah
has been a problem for Israel during and since its withdrawal from
Lebanon. It is supported by Syria and Iran, who are seen by the US as part
of an axis of evil.
Tariq Ali in an interview to Mother Jones, in reply to a question about
the impact of Hezbollahs apparent military successes on the change of the
equation in the Middle East, said: It has shaken the world, but its not
shaken enough to understand the root causes of this (which is why) we
have this grotesque situation where the Israelis, the United States and the
French collaborate to try to push through a resolution which is so pro-Israel
that even the tamest of Arab leaders cant accept it.
But Hezbollah has changed things, theres no doubt about that.
Now even Lebanons Prime Minister, not known for being a particularly
strong politician, has told Condoleezza Rice she shouldnt bother visiting the
country. Unheard of! And the other aspect of this of course is that thereve
been demonstrations, small but important demonstrations against the war, in
Tel Aviv, in Haifa, in Jerusalem, and I think that these will grow in size as
people see that this absurd and criminal war waged by the Israeli regime
against Lebanon is making their lives unsafe.
Regarding the possibility of movement demanding end of Israels
occupation of Palestinian territories, he said: I think you will have within
Israel a resistance, including many Jewish people who will see we cant
carry on in the same old way. And here I think the South Africa analogy is
740

not so foolish: that many white South Africans finally realized that we cant
carry on in the same old way, we have to do a deal with the people weve
been opposing, and this is best for both communities. Maybe Im being
ultra-optimistic, but I think that before this century comes to an end
something like that will emerge.
About his support to fundamentalist ideology of Hezbollah and
Hamas, he said: I do not agree with their religious views however, when
a country is invaded and attacked and people resist its important to speak
up and say they have the right to resist and to defend their right to resist.
The West defended the Ethiopians and the Albanians against the
Italian onslaught and said they had the right to resist. So its on that
principle that when people, whoever they may be, you may not like them,
but when they decide to resist, you have to defend their right to do so.
Robert Fisk wrote, Israeli military authorities talked of clearing and
mopping up operations by their soldiers south of the Litani River but, to
the Lebanese, it seems as if it is the Hezbollah that have been doing the
mopping up. By last night, the Israelis had not even been able to reach the
dead crew of a helicopter, which crashed into a Lebanese valley.
From this morning, Hezbollahs operations will be directed solely
against the invasion force Hezbollah have, for years, prayed and longed
and waited for the moment when they could attack the Israeli army on the
ground.
Israel itself, according to reports from Washington and New York,
had long planned its current campaign against Lebanonbut the Israelis
appear to have taken no account of the guerrilla armys most obvious
operational plan: that if they could endure days of air attacks, they would
eventually force Israels army to re-enter Lebanon on the ground and fight
them on equal terms.
At this fatal juncture in Middle East history and no one should
underestimate this moments importance in the region the Israeli army
appears as impotent to protect its country as the Hezbollah clearly is to
protect Lebanon.
But if the ceasefire collapses, as seems certain, neither the Israelis
nor the Americans appear to have any plans to escape the consequences. The
US saw this war as an opportunity to humble Hezbollahs Iranian and Syrian
sponsors but already it seems as if the tables have been turned.

741

The Lebanese government is our address for every problem or

violation of the (ceasefire) agreement, Israels Prime Minister Ehud Olmert,
said yesterday, as if realizing the truce would not hold. And that, of course,
provides yet another excuse for Israel to attack the civilian
infrastructure of Lebanon.
Far more worrying, however, are the vague terms of the UN
Security Councils resolution on the multinational force supposed to
occupy land between the Israeli border and the Litani River Tragically,
and fatally for all involved, the real Lebanon war does indeed begin today.
Richard Cohen observed, the birth pangs are over This has been a
very hard birth. It has been particularly hard for the Lebanese, of course,
but no fun for Israel, either. Although Hezbollah has, as they say, been
downgraded, it has nonetheless emerged as the fighting force with the best
reputation in the Middle East.
It has been particularly hard for the Lebanese, of course, for Israel,
either. Although Hezbollah has, as they say, been downgraded, it has
nonetheless emerged as the fighting force with the best reputation in the
Middle East.
From the start, it seemed that Israel had failed to take due note of
the mistakes of Donald Rumsfeld. The longtime and (inexplicably) current
US secretary of defence pronounced the bright idea that Iraq could be
conquered and pacified with about 150,000 American troops.
But the lesson of Iraq and, now, Lebanon, is that zealots make
tough enemies. It was one thing for Israel to fight apathetic and hapless
Egyptians, Jordanians This has not been the case with Hezbollah or, in
Iraq, the various groups of fanatics who would blow themselves up for
reasons that we could not begin to fathom. Hezbollah is now described in
terms once reserved for the Japanese army of World War II.

ROLE OF CRUSADERS
The smug defense of Israels actions from Washington meanwhile go
once more to underline the narrowness of policies devised at the White
House, as well as the dangers inherent in a situation where a man of as
limited intellectual capacity as President George Bush determines much of
what happens in the world, wrote Kamila Hyat.

742

It is tragedy that Bush and his sidekick, Tony Blair, have not seen the
dangers in their actions. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that their
determination to cheer Israel on as it attempts to crush Hezbollah is a part
of the game of war Washington has been threatening to wage against
Iran. It believes weakening Hezbollah will damage Iran, may be even open
up the path for a strike against it
In Pakistan, the now familiar face of Hezbollah leader Hassan
Nasrallah, has begun to crop up on the rear windows of cars, amidst the
anti-US graffiti scrawled on walls and on posters borne by anti-war posters
which have included an unusual mix of those leaning to the Left and the
Right, or placed somewhere in between, staging largely separate and
consequently miniscule rallies across Lahore and other cities.
Nosheen Saeed commented, terrorism is indiscriminate killing of
civilians in pursuit of political goals and by this definition Israel and the
US are actually terrorists themselves. When the sole superpower of the
world keeps sending smoke signals, closes the doors of negotiations, refuses
to attend the core issue of conflicts, brutalizes country after country, drives
out inhabitants from their traditional homeland and without regard to the
civilian population prepares murderous aerial bombardment, resulting in the
death of innocent women and children and destruction of infrastructure, with
the sole objective of turning all Arab states into Israeli and US protectorates,
the radical elements prone to seek alternative ways to redress their
grievances will rise from the ashes. The emergence of resistance fighters is
directly linked to Western betrayal and atrocities committed by it.
The ongoing murderous campaign inside Lebanon cannot therefore
be grasped without an understanding of the Zionist dream that includes
annexing the southern part of Lebanon right up to Litani River in Lebanon,
Syrias Golan Heights and the West and East banks of the Jordan River.
The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been
contemplated by the US and Israeli military planners. This broader
military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines and
supported by the Western oil giants, controlling the pipeline corridors.
The five-year campaign plan includes a total of seven countries,
beginning with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.
According to General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon, by late 2001, was
planning to attack Lebanon. Bushs plan for a serial war is fully consistent
with a plan built by the neocons that are in key positions in his government.

743

The US has given Israel a carte blanch because its confronted by a

potentially nuclear-armed Iran and a humiliating defeat in Iraq. Its desperate
to regain the initiative in the wider Middle East. The pro-Israeli neocons
have convinced the US that victory for Israel in Lebanon will be a victory
for the US and a defeat will be a defeat for both.
The desperation and frustration of the US is visible in the war on
Lebanon The policy of cruelty pursued by the Nazis, after they came to
power in 1933, has been long been forgotten by the world compared to the
brutality, savagery and cruel genocide, unleashed in the Middle East.
For more important for President Bush than such issues of principle
and morality is removal of what he considers the root cause of the problem,
as he said in his remarks on Monday in Texas, where he is on vacation, For
him the root cause is the presence of Hezbollah guerrillas, not Israels
constant violation of Lebanese border territory, despite its withdrawal
from southern Lebanon in 2000, and its refusal to vacate the Shebaa Farms
areaand return it to Lebanon, wrote the News.
On Tuesday, the Arab League delegation at the United Nations
denounced the Security Councils inability to stop the bloodbath in
Lebanon. But as in the lack of resolution of the Arab-Israel dispute,
Washington is to blame for the failure, not the United Nations.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal observed, impotent rage, helpless Arab bystanders
watching death and destruction on their kith and kin on their big screens,
callous and inhuman diplomatic games at the UN. That is all. That is all
there is to the grotesque holocaust of a new kind being enacted in broad
daylight, in full view of the entire world.
The delaying tactics of the government of the United States at the UN
keep working. They are designed to allow Israel as much time as it needs to
execute its brutally pre-planned strategy a strategy no doubt developed
in Washington DC to carve out a new Middle East. The plan is to
change ground realities, yet one more time, so that the sheer logic of a fait
accompli can then dictate terms of peace.
A new Middle East, we are told, is necessary, because the old is not
working. The Middle East, however cannot be built without first
destroying the old one which was already built on the ruins of an older
Middle East, carved out of the ancient lands of Islam by treachery, betrayals,
and, of course, by brute force.

744

WAR TO PEACEKEEPING
After allowing Israel the time to accomplish the task and noting that
nothing more could be achieved through military means, the US decided to
do the remaining through diplomatic means using the ever handy platform of
the UN. The Washington Times cautioned the Yankee at the UN; Bolton.
Russia, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference
have united with the Lebanese government to wage an all-out campaign to
further weaken the draft resolution and to force the Israeli army to retreat
from Lebanon at once.
The US-French (resolution) includes a number of provisions which,
if implemented, would ensure that Lebanese territory is no longer used
to menace Israel. It includes language that would create a procedure to
disarm Hezbollah, to establish an embargo on weapons for the terrorists and
strengthen the Lebanese army, enabling it to control south. These provisions
sound nice on paper, but on paper is where they likely will remain.
Unfortunately, over the next few days, American diplomats wont be
working to clarify and strengthen draft resolution. Instead, they will likely
spend most of their time fending off the Arab League, the Organization of
the Islamic Conference and Moscow, all demanding that Israel withdraw
immediately and turn southern Lebanon over to a Lebanese army that cannot
stand up to Hezbollah.
The Guardian wrote, the truth behind the diplomatic efforts to stop
the fighting in Lebanon, a truth that also lies behind Israels threat to expand
the war if it is not satisfied with the outcome, is that everything now
revolves around an attempt to save Israels face. The Olmert government
has to be given a chance to climb down without looking too much like a
loser and allowing Israeli forces to stay in Lebanon for a while may, at least
in Israels estimation, meet that requirement. That is why the powers are
working hard at the United Nations and elsewhere to persuade the Arab
countries to soften their position on a continued Israeli presence. It is not so
much that the Israeli defence forces want to stay so they can continue
hammering Hezbollah, but that the Israeli government wants them to stay on
to give the Israeli public the feeling that we shoved them.
Even if the campaign in Lebanon should lead to a situation in which
the demilitarization of Hezbollah comes a little earlier, how can all the
damage that has been done in the past month be justified by such a
small improvement in Israels security?

745

That icon of Israeli policy, the deterrent image of the Israeli defence
forces, is badly dented, for Lebanon has shown not only a dismal
combination of poor political judgment and inadequate intelligence on the
civilian side, but a failure on the military side to achieve the decisive results
promised.
It should not be forgotten that, while attention has been focused on
Lebanon, Israeli military actions in Gaza have killed almost 200 people,
while a good proportion of the Palestinian Authoritys ministers and
parliamentarians remain in detention. What little there was in the way of an
Israeli plan for dealing with a Hamas leadership in Palestine lies in ruins?
The more rows the Israeli establishment has over Lebanon, the better.
Facing up to the failure, and confronting the strategic errors which led to it,
will be vital if Israel is to think through its problems in a rational way. The
Israelis need a way out, and the difficult task is to give them one without
also storing up trouble for the future. The alternative is the continuation of a
war that even the hawks no longer want to pursue.
Ahmed Quraishi wrote, any ceasefire this week in the almost onemonth old war will come in the backdrop of growing public interest in two
questions. One, what has Israel achieved from the war and, two, what has
Hezbollah gained from the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers on July 12.
Hezbollah may not have expected this war. But it sure was ready for
one. It has succeeded so far in surviving almost a month of ruthless Israeli
air fire. Not only that, Hezbollah has also scored a first. This is the first time
that someone in the Middle East gave Israel a bloody nose for an entire
month. Israel fought back, of course. But no one has seen Israel with such
a bloody nose in a long time.
Hezbollah rockets have reached the Israeli heartland. The only other
someone to ever try to hit Israel by a missile was Saddam Hussein back in
1991. But he was ineffective. And he did it for only a day or two. Hezbollah
fighters have also proved themselves on the ground. They gave Israeli
soldiers and crack units a tough time in the Lebanese cities of Baaldek and
Tyre and have fought pitched battles with them in villages in the south.
But while Hezbollah is surviving on the battlefield, it faces political
difficulties on the home front. In Beirut, the government of Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora has approved a plan that calls for Hezbollah to eventually
surrender its arms to the government once the war is over and turn itself
into a political party, packing up its military wing. The plan has the approval

746

of almost all of Lebanons political parties This time it finds itself unable
to ignore such a demand.
Hezbollah is also devastated. The people who supported Hezbollah
are the biggest victims of this war. A million have been displaced
Almost all of them have lost their normal lives. And they all live in
temporary shelters now that cannot be sustained for long. Such
commentaries aim at pointing out that peacekeeping wont be easy without
disarming Hezbollah.
He added, on the other hand, before July 12 Israel had an enemy on
its northern border that it claimed was acting as a proxy of Iran. Today, Israel
is inside Lebanon, trying to create a buffer zone, and has pushed Hezbollah
way inside Lebanon Both Syria and Iran appear to be distancing
themselves militarily from the militia, though continuing to give it
political support, especially Iran.
And that is not all. Israel is also trying to convince the world to
send a force to south Lebanon that would have the mandate to fight
Hezbollah if the militia tries to regroup. And finally, Israel says it will only
have a temporary halt in the war, or a cessation of hostilities, not a
ceasefire, until the international force is on the ground.
The French-American UN draft resolution on the cessation of
hostilities if passed, will give the Lebanese government two hard choices;
either to confront Hezbollah, seize its arms and deploy troops in militias
strongholds, risking a Hezbollah backlash, or reject the resolution and
continue to insist that the international community leave it to the Lebanese
government on how to deal with Hezbollah.
While finalizing the resolution, the US has already decided that bulk
of the peacekeeping forces would come from NATO, which includes a
Muslim country; Turkey. Tayyib Erdogan has publicly said hes willing to
send in Turkish troops. But he may have spoken too soon, observed Tulin
Daloglu expressing some reservations:
First: The forces mandate remains unclear. France, like Turkey,
would prefer to find a political way to get Hezbollah to disarm
voluntarily.
Two: Erdogan seems to have forgotten Turkeys experience in Cyprus
with UN peacekeepers, which have been there since 1964 And even
today, the peace on the island is preserved less by the UN
peacekeepers, but more by the Turkish military.
747

 Three: Erdoganhas told the Turkish people in several speeches that

they should not forget that Israel is the real culprit in the conflict.
Fourth: The United States and Turkey agreed on a strategic vision for
their relationship last month, one of their main common strategic goal
was supporting international efforts towards a permanent settlement
of the Arab Israeli conflict Today, they hardly seem to be on the
same page.
Fifth: Every conflict raises opportunities. Mr Erdogan may have
seized the moment and expected that in talking about an international
peacekeeping force he could repair the ties between Turkey and the
United States
Sixth: Parliament must approve any international deployment of
Turkish troops that doesnt fall under the NATO bannergetting that
decision through parliament isnt so easy.
When asked about the steps which should be essential to end
hostilities and bringing lasting peace, Noam Chomsky said, the basic steps
are well understood: a ceasefire and exchange of prisoners; withdrawal of
occupying forces; continuation of the national dialogue within Lebanon;
and acceptance of very broad international consensus on a two-sate
settlement for Israel-Palestine, which has been unilaterally blocked by the
United States and Israel for thirty years. There is, as always, much more to
say, but those are the essentials.
The Daily Star observed, the biggest obstacle to a fair resolution to
this conflict is that the Israelis, whose military campaign has thus far failed,
are desperate to save face. Their irrational fear is that ending the war at this
stage without a decisive Israeli victory will undermine Israels security.
It added, the Arab delegations are likely to meet opposition in
Washington from President George W Bush, who is eager to cut out any
points from Sinioras plan that he views as out of step with his myopic
vision of a new Middle East. In fact, the rigidity of both the United States
and Iran is likely to stall the efforts of diplomats to find a flexible and
creative solution that will secure long-term stability in the region.
As the war in Lebanon continues, we are rapidly approaching the
August 31 deadline for resolving the dispute over Irans nuclear program.
Any failure to stop the violence in Lebanon by the deadline will ratchet up
the level of regional pressure exceptionally. A very extraordinary and urgent

748

effort is required to prod Iran and the United States out of their
entrenched positions.
After the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1701, the New York Times
wrote, It will also require the dispatch of an international military force
with sufficient authority and firepower to guarantee that there can be no
repeat of the Hezbollah provocations that set off this destructive conflict.
Israeli provocations have been accepted as legitimate act of self-defence.
As hard as it will be to seal the border against Hezbollah infiltrations
into Israel, that will not be enough. Hezbollah has rockets that can be fired
from deep inside Lebanon at targets deep inside Israel. These must be
stopped as well, ideally by the full disarmament of Hezbollah that the
Security Council first called for in 2004.
Washington which rightly stood by Israel but wrongly refused to
call for a ceasefire or engage in meaningful diplomacy with Syria, also
paid a price that could further complicate problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A rapid and effective follow through on yesterdays resolution could make
up for some of these losses. Anything less will only compound the damage
already done.
The News wrote, Israels intention to basically disregard the ceasefire
for the time being is shown by the tripling of its force in Lebanon a day
before the resolutions passage. The document also calls for an end to
hostilities by both the IDF and Hezbollah. The fact remains that had
America not vetoed the Security Councils draft ceasefire resolution on
July 14 favouring an immediate ceasefire, the latest Israeli invasion of
Lebanon would have stopped dead in the tracks almost immediately after it
had started.
Its not just the inordinate delay that weakens the impact of the
resolution, its also the unjust equilibrium contained in the text. At the
same time as Israel is asked to halt its offensive military operations,
Hezbollah is called upon to end its attacks on Israel. The two actions are
treated as being of the same nature, without a distinction made between
aggressor and the victim.
Israels vacation of the area (Shebaa Farms) is one of Hezbollahs
demands for the release of the two Israelis and the resolution addresses it, at
best, in very vague terms. Whatever the faults of the belated resolution,
the important thing is its immediate implementation. Israel must not be
allowed to drag its feet on a halt to the invasion and immediate withdrawal
from south Lebanon.
749

In the context of Israel, the UN resolution implies: Letting a mad dog

loose and then telling it not to bite anyone. The Crusaders have cleverly
worded the resolution to exert pressure for disarming Hezbollah, before
settling any other issue. They would use Lebanese territory for creating a
buffer zone, saving every inch of Israels territory from falling in it, though
the sole beneficiary of this security arrangement would remain Israel. This
has also allowed the Crusaders to have foothold in yet another country
of the Islamic World under the Garb of UN peacekeeper.

ROLE OF MUSLIMS
The conflict confronts the Muslim World with another formidable
challenge after the 9/11 attacks. Once again, a daring non-state group is the
target of the firepower of a state; Israels persecution of Hezbollah in
Lebanon bears a poignant resemblance to the US action against al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan. Once again the Muslim World has no strategy. It watches in
horror and anguish as Lebanon is turned into a wasteland, said Naman
Sattar.
Prof Anwarul Haque from Islamabad wrote that OIC took no
concrete actions against Israel and the Zionists. It asked the UNO to
punish Israel. The fact that Israel blatantly killed four UN observers, leaves
no doubt that the UN is an organization subservient to the Zionists to the
extent that they can kill its workers and it cant do anything about it.
Abdur Rehman from Islamabad wrote, the attitude of the media and
intellectuals in the Muslim World is absolutely incomprehensible. Why
do they refer to the UN for the solutions of their problems? Can these
intellectuals, media men and columnists present one example when the UN
has actually solved a conflict regarding the Muslim World? Contrary to this
the UN has always acted against the Muslims; the recognition of Israel,
legalizing the invasion of Afghanistan, the continuing crisis of Sudan and
Somalia, ignoring the issue of Kashmir, the mishandling of Bosnia and
Chechnya The list goes on.
If the media and intellectuals continue to stick to their demands of a
role of the UN in the resolution of the outstanding issues in the Muslim
World, then they will be playing at the hands of the West, because by doing
so they are actually endorsing the status quo and giving legitimacy to this
body. The world in general and the Muslim Ummah in particular need a
new global leadership.

750

Asad A Khan from Islamabad said, now that the Israelis are
massacring Lebanese people, including children as young as 10 days old,
while destroying the beautiful city of Beirut and the infrastructure of
Lebanon and occupying large chunks of the Lebanese land, the Israeli have
the gall to call the Lebanese terrorists. And majority of the Muslim ruling
elite quietly agrees with Israelis.
Zain Mankani said, political and religious leaders of the Muslim
Ummah have fallen into a new low. Previously the worst that could be held
against them was that they lacked the courage to stand up against their
enemies. Now one can go further and say that they cannot even support
those who do take a stand.
Some Arab states have condemned Hezbollah for showing the
courage to kidnap Israeli soldiers and demand a prisoner swap The
members of the OIC seem to have forgotten that the organization was
formed in order to realize the goal of freeing Palestine from Zionist
occupiers. Instead of supporting actions, which may benefit Palestinians,
they have begun condemning them.
In Saudi Arabia, religious clerics have issued edicts to the effect that
it is prohibited to even pray for the victory of Hezbollah, because it is a
Shiite organization comprising of rafidis (dissenters from what is considered
the mainstream Islam). This really has to be the joke of the century, because
it means that Muslims are not even willing to overcome their petty
differences in order to fight against a common enemy. What calamity will
come to pass in the event that Hezbollah scores a victory over Israel? Isnt it
something to pray for? Will the clerics allow the masses to at least pray for
the defeat of the Israelis, if not for the victory of Hezbollah or will that too
amount to sin? And should one then pray for the victory of the Zionists so
that the rafidis suffer a defeat? ... I would have asked the Arab leaders what
happened to the rule: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but from the
looks of things, it seems that they cant decide whether the Jews are worse or
the so-called rafidis!
What is interesting is that during Hajj it is in Saudi Arabia that all the
various sects come together to perform the pilgrimage. No Saudi leader
would have the courage to divide the mainstream Muslims from the
dissenters or prohibit them from performing the pilgrimage. If Shiites are
so bad that they cant be supported against the Jews, then why are they
allowed to perform Hajj, while the Jews are not allowed to enter Mecca?
This is the unprecedented hypocrisy that plagues Saudi society and leaders.

751

While they are host to the event that brings all Muslims together, they cant
find a similar place in their heart.
Even a non-Muslim, Robert Fisk, cursed them. The (Arab) ministers
decided to send a delegation to the UN in New York which will have
Washington shaking in its boots and the Saudis agreed to an Arab summit
in Mecca, but one which should not be rushed because it must be carefully
prepared which sounded very like George W Bushs equally
mendacious remark that a ceasefire had to be carefully prepared. And
that will have them shaking in the shoes in Tel Aviv.
It was preposterous, scandalous, shameful to listen to these robed
apparatchiks most of them are paid, armed or otherwise supported by the
West shed their crocodile tears before a nation on its knees.
Air Cdre Azfar A Khan reminded, Lebanon is a Muslim majority
country. Their miseries are the miseries of the whole Islamic World. Let the
Muslims and the Arabs not be counted as separate entities. Most of the
Muslim countries in the Middle East have the latest F-16s and other
weapons. The greatest of all the weapons is oil which, if used, can cause
reverberations in the whole world. But whos prepared to use it? Azfar
should have known that the F-16s have been provided with the condition of
not using these against Israel. Pakistan too is likely to get additional F-16s
on similar conditions.
There were demonstrations in the whole world against the invasion of
Iraq by the US. Even Russia, China and France could not stop the US from
achieving its aim. In this world, one has to be strong in order to
survive The Muslim World must wake up from its deep slumber.
Azam Khalil opined that to achieve a degree of self-respect it would
be essential for the Muslim countries to pool their resources in a
meaningful way and allow true representatives of the people to rule. This
would be crucial and essential that puppets and lackeys of the West are
removed by popular forces that were always better prepared and equipped to
protect their respective national interests.
It is also time that the Muslim World became self sufficient to protect
itself and its weaker members from the atrocities that include economic
exploitation by anyone; however powerful. They must remember that
power lies in unity and real progress is only possible if one can protect the
integrity of ones country. Once the Muslim countries realize the importance
of unity only then can they begin to cooperate in other important fields that
would ensure protection for their people and their assets.
752

It is now an accepted fact that the powers with veto rights can easily
subvert the opinion of a vast majority of nations, therefore, the world body is
in essence serving the interests of a few powerful countries and the rest of
the world should never expect justice from the United Nations.
This was another compelling example that increased the importance
of Muslim unity around the world. However, if the Muslim countries fail to
wake up to these realities they must prepare for a long period of
subjugation and disgrace by small countries such as Israel that will
continue to indulge in cruel acts against the Muslims and finally overcome
whatever resistance that exists today.
To achieve this will not be easy and may require some time and
resources, but at the end of the day a purposeful plan would allow
Muslims to keep their chins up with grace and dignity The duties of
rich countries are more than those who are poor.
The OIC needs to be restructured and streamlined in a way that it
can provide muscle to the voice of the Muslim World. At present it is
nothing but a talk-shop and therefore no one listens to resolutions that are
adopted by the organization at different times.
Mir Jamilur Rahman said, there is no chance whatsoever that any
OIC member country will ever catch up with the US military and economic
might or with the economic and scientific strength of Germany, England or
Japan. The Muslim ummah and their leaders have more important
things to do than involve themselves in mundane subjects of science and
technology.
Shireen M Mazari was of the view that the Bush-Blair combine will
never be satisfied with Pakistan, no matter what it does. That is why while
Bush was effusive in his thanks to Blair on unveiling an alleged plot to blow
up airliners across the Atlantic, there was no thanks coming forth to the
Pakistani leadership which not only unearthed the alleged plot and so
nicely timed for the Bush-Blair combine given the increasing criticism of
their support to Israeli aggression, akin to war crimes on a massive scale,
against Lebanon. So having put the Muslim World on the defensive once
again, it should hardly surprise anyone that the figure of 1,100 Lebanese
dead may have missed by the Ummah.
After all, out of all the Muslim World, it is only Pakistan, which
despite it myriad problems, withstood tremendous pressure over decades and
acquired nuclear capability. And it is Pakistan that commands respect on the
Muslim street, including the Arab street. And it is Pakistan that, despite its
753

many scars, continues to rightfully challenge the bully on the block, India,
and dares to still pursue some level of an external policy that sits
uncomfortably with the US just as our nuclear status sits uncomfortably
with the Christian West. I use the word Christian deliberately because we
are descending into an international relations framework where religion is
being used to define political interaction amongst states.
The war on terror is now in a state of flux. The degeneration of this
laudable international objective began with the US-led, coalition of the
willing supported invasion of Iraq and has now reached a new low point
within the context of collective responsibility being exercised by Israel
supported by the Bush-Blair combine to kill innocent Arabs in Lebanon.
Pakistanis need to shed a few more tears and hold back on our
bombast to show our sensitivity to our peoples plight and the tragedies that
strike us. That is why the Lebanese premiers public tears were a sign of his
greatness because he felt the tragedy of his people. I dont recall any tears on
our leaders faces at the fall of Dhaka or at the shooting of the Atlantique.
Mahanoor from Nowshera was hurt by the remarks of air chief
marshal on tears of Lebanese prime minister, who had said that Pakistan
would never have to cry like Siniora. He was in tears because of out of love
for his compatriots and I think there is nothing wrong with that. Moreover,
time is nobodys friend.
Today they are in trouble, God forbid, tomorrow we could be in
trouble. I think the air chief marshal was quite disrespectful (just like
Israeli foreign minister). He has no right to comment on Lebanons leaders
the way he did when he cant do anything beneficial and supportive for
them.
As regards MI5-ISI collaboration, it took the focus off Lebanon,
because the war was embarrassing the civilized world in many ways. It
allowed Western Media to ignore the ongoing bloodletting and instead
bemoan over that which has been averted. It indulged in Muslim-bashing,
instead of unpleasant reporting about the perpetration of death and
destruction by its Jewish ally.

IMPACT
There is nothing new to add to all that has been mentioned in earlier
weeks, except the likely impact of the UNSC Resolution 1701. Before
drawing inferences from the resolution, some views on earlier deductions are
754

reproduced; first, the rage and anger that the war has ignited in Muslim
World.
Kamila Hyat observed, in this re-ignition of fury and of a deep-rooted
rage against The injustice seen in the Middle East, there may possibly lie
more danger around the corners and behind the smoke caused by falling
bombs, than Washingtonhas envisaged. Already, the possibility of some
kind of Hezbollah victory, of resistance continuing till Israel and its allies are
forced onto the back foot, is being raised. This would mean a boost for
anti-US groups across the Middle East, and could well threaten the puppet
presidents and monarchs who today enable the US to pursue it dangerous
agenda in the region.
And even as the US continues its remarkably ineffective war against
terror more children will look to these men as their heroes in a world
that has failed to offer them any meaningful alternatives or any answers to
the injustice and exploitation they have faced generation after generation and
decade after decade.
What the conflict will certainly do is to inspire many more to take
up arms and offer their lives in the cause of a battle against the US. This
translates into more blasts in western capitals, more training camps in other
nations and most crucially of all, an increase in the support for the terrorist
outfits that today, in many parts of the world, represent the most visible front
against the imperialism of Washington and its allies.
The manner in which Hezbollah has been able to unite the people
of Lebanon, one of the most progressive and liberal of Arab nations, behind
it is too a matter of some significance. It has gained support even from the
countrys Christians, who had in the past bitterly opposed it.
Noam Chomsky said, one very likely consequence, as the United
States and Israel surely anticipated, is a significant increase in jihadi-style
terrorism as anger and hatred directed against the United States, Israel,
and Britain sweep the Arab and Muslim worlds. Another is that Nasrallah,
whether he survives or is killed, will become an even more important
symbol of resistance to US-Israeli aggression.
Hezbollah already has a phenomenal 87% support in Lebanon itself,
and its resistance has energized popular opinion to such an extent that even
the oldest and closest US allies have been compelled to say that: If the
peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance, then only the war option
remains, and no one knows the repercussions befalling the region,
including wars and conflict that will spare no one, including those whose
755

military power is now tempting them to play with fire. Thats from King
Abdullah
Gilbert Achcar opined that far from inducing civil war between the
Lebanese, Israels brutal aggression only succeeded so far in uniting
them in a common resentment against its murderous brutality. Tariq Ali,
however, was not sure that the war would have similar effect on the Ummah,
Dr M S Jillani was.
What might come out to be the most noteworthy feature of this
engagement could be its role in solidifying the Muslim Ummah and the
near obliteration of the sectarian divide among the Muslims. Another
outcome of brutality and disregard for human life may be the renewed
resolve to liberate Arab lands from Israels occupation, cutting it to size and
monitoring the supply of arms and technology from the Western countries to
Israel.
His optimism did not obscure his vision to take note of ground
realities. Myriad interests of various nations have kept the settlement of
the Palestine issue elusive. And the trend continues. One has selected five
broad areas, which hinder the solution to problems of the Middle East in
particular the Palestine issue.
First: It should be understood that Israel is not a territory obtained by
people residing there, nor do they govern it. It is a product of the
governments of Europe and the USA who wanted to rule the Middle
East through proxy
Second: Since the Israeli attack on Lebanon, the major targets of
government leaders, media and politicians of the United States have been
Syria and Iran. It is not without reason. Iraq and Iran are oil rich. Syria has
had a strong influence in Lebanon Iraq having been pulverized already,
Iran and Syria remain the main targets of the industrial world, led by
the United States.
Third: It is well known that the industrial countries engage in wars to
increase employment, enhance production of their factories and impose their
economic and political dominance in the war-stricken areas during and
after the war. Middle East has been subjected to constant aggression to
create a feeling of helplessness in the area, increase the amount of profit for
the supplies of arms, and provide an opportunity to the industrial countries
to establish their superiority and strength, through brokering peace and
rebuilding the devastated countries

756

Fourth: See in a wider perspective, imposed or staged wars have two

parts. The industrial countries start wars in the Third World to make
economic gains and establish their dominance as stated above. They also
strive to make their grip on the less prosperous nations permanent by
imposing Western culture and life-style on them.
Fifth: The assault on Lebanon is a bid to weaken governments of
countries in the immediate vicinity of Israel. While ravages of war will
debilitate Lebanon, other countries in the neighbourhood would lose through
depleted tourism decline in trade, disruption in intra-regional transport, harm
to environment, etc. Israel will be the sole beneficiary immediately as well
as in the long term.
Coming to the much awaited UNSC resolution, Kamila Hyat wrote,
whatever the eventual content of the resolution drafted and printed out on
UN letterheads, whenever the fighting finally stops, the fact is that the shape
of many things in the future has already been determined. The terrible
images from Lebanonwill not quickly be erased from minds and from
memories.
The UNSC Resolution No 1701 only promises a halt in fighting, but
in no way it marks the end of the war. The war will continue in many ways:
The word cessation of hostilities will not be applicable to Israel. The
Jewish state will continue enjoying freedom of action under the
pretext of self-defence. It wont hesitate in striking Hezbollah targets
as it has been doing with Palestinians for decades.
Momentum of diplomatic and media offensive will increase through
favourable interpretation of the resolution. Some of the goals will be
achieved through incentives and arm-twisting.
Interpretations or misinterpretations of the resolution will particularly
focus on disarming Hezbollah.
The Crusaders are not likely to give up their mission of reshaping
the Middle East, but they will be constrained to revise their strategy in this
context, because the birth pangs which Rice had reported have resulted in
still-birth. She has to embed with the neocons to re-conceive to have the
desired baby.
Pro-West Muslim ruling elite has been alarmed by the performance
of Hezbollah, but they are not likely to see the light of reason. Instead,
they may stand alongside the Crusaders with renewed determination to crush

757

the Islamic militants, who not only tarnish the image of Islam but also
hamper the betterment of the Ummah. Muslim masses, who love their
freedom and self respect, have to find ways and means to get rid of the
stooges of the West, before embarking on confronting the Crusaders.

CONCLUSION
The war has ended in a stalemate allowing the each side to claim
victory. Either side has some successes, but failures were many. Israel has:
Secured a buffer zone in Southern Lebanon where international
force can be deployed for security of Israel.
Failed in destroying the militia and eliminating its leader despite its
relentless efforts, but weakened Hezbollah militarily and caused lot of
pain to its Shiite backers through collective punishment.
Failed in triggering an Iraq-like civil war and even alienating the
Lebanese from Hezbollah. Also, failed in toppling the Lebanese
government to install a puppet regime.
Failed in re-establishing the deterrence of IDF and instead exposed
vulnerability of Israeli rear.
Failed to secure release of its prisoners through use of force and
instead its irrational approach to regional issues has been completely
exposed.
The gains and losses of Hezbollah were as under:
By targeting installations inside Israel with rockets, the militia
exposed a serious vulnerability of Israel, which is surrounded by Arab
countries from three sides.
It may not have defeated the IDF, but it showed that the defender can
fight back through good planning, thorough preparation and
unflinching determination.
By fighting resolutely for the defence of Lebanon, mostly through
conventional means and tactics, the militia can no more be termed as a
loose terrorist organization.
Like Israel, it failed in securing the release of prisoners and caused lot
pain to Lebanese.

758

The war has certain lessons for those who are interested in learning.
Hezbollah conceived, outlined, and practiced a strategy to fight successfully
against the might of conventional army equipped with high-tech weapons
and means of delivery. It proved that a militia supported by the masses can
defend a motherland far better than a professional standing army, raised
and used for protection of the interests of the rulers. This also implied that
nationalistic spirit is far stronger motivational factor as compared to any
political or economic interest.
Hezbollahs performance has a message not so pleasant for the
westward-looking ruling elites in Islamic World to other militias in Islamic
World that their destiny is in their hands and not in the hands of their rulers
who are allies of the West.
The Lebanese, however, demonstrated national unity despite religious,
sectarian, ethnic and political divides. Their unity influenced the outcome of
the conflict more than any other factor. This has the message for the rulers of
Ummah, who sometime back had pledged to defend a Muslim country
united, if attacked; and having pledged that they had flocked around Kaaba
to show their sincerity. None of them fulfilled their promise, except Iran and
Syria. Their inability to do so has rendered their collective worth far less
than a single fighter of Hezbollah in the eyes of the Muslim masses.
Hezbollahs performance must have reassured Iran and Syria; the next
two countries in the line of fire. The two countries, however, will face
difficulties in rearming the Hezbollah because Crusaders and Israel seemed
determined to block the replenishment attempts.
Religio-political parties and groups in Islamic World must have been
encouraged to actively participate in political process of their countries.
Muslim Brotherhood, for example, with its base in Egypt and off-shoots in
Syria and Jordan could win more popular support.
Unity of the Crusaders was once again demonstrated in defying all
calls for an early ceasefire to give sufficient time to Israel to accomplish the
tasks approved well in advance of the start of war, and when they saw that
not happening, they rescued Israel through UNSC resolution.
The respite provided by the Resolution 1701, will be utilized to
replenish and re-arm Israel in the light of the experience of the fighting with
a resilient non-state actor. In other words the preparations for the next
round will continue.

759

Israels economic losses will be compensated unconditionally as

usual. Lebanons reconstruction will be used as a tool to pressurize the
government and the people. Failing which, the Crusaders will endeavour to
trigger some kind of inter-faith or inter-sect strife like the one sponsored in
Iraq with the aim of exhausting them.
16th August 2006

BLUE UMBRELLA
With the adoption of UNSC resolution, the Zionist warriors and their
supporters from the lands of the Crusaders retreated to homeland encased
their flags bearing Star of David and Stars and Strips and assembled under
blue umbrella of the UN to pursue their goals through diplomacy.
Henceforth and till next round of the armed conflict, peace rhetoric will
replace the war cries.
On 16th August, foreign ministers of France and Turkey arrived in
Beirut to discuss plan for assembly of UN forces. OIC delegation led by
Malaysian and Pakistani foreign ministers also reached Beirut to clean the
dirt off turnips.
One man was killed in Lebanon due to left-over war munitions.
Lebanese started returning at the rate of 6,000 an hour to rebuild their homes
despite Israeli warnings. In contrast, a trickle of residents returned to their
homes in Northern Israel, despite government offers of free transport from
their temporary refuges.
By next day, no country had made firm commitment to peacekeeping
force, except about dozen European countries expressing interest. France
considered reducing it participation to just 200-men because of security
concerns.
Hezbollah acknowledged the help from Iran and Syria in its victory
over Israel. The United Nations identified at least ten places were Israel used
cluster bombs in southern Lebanon; where 16 people have died so far after
the bombs were dropped.

760

On 18th August, Hezbollah started distributing cash to people rendered

homeless due to Israeli bombings. Next day, Israeli commandos raided a
Hezbollah stronghold in the eastern Bekka Valley. Three Hezbollah fighters
were reported killed; Hezbollah denied. Israel said that the heli-borne raid
was defensive in nature, so it did not violate the UNSC resolution.
Israeli troops kidnapped deputy Prime Minister of Palestine; later
Palestinian gunmen killed an Israeli soldier near Nablus. Israeli troops had
also killed three Palestinians a day earlier and three Hamas members died in
a blast in Jenin. Lebanese death toll in war rose to 1,287, including 30
percent children.
Fifty French military engineers arrived in the area. Lebanese President
said that nations with military ties with Israel must not be part of the
peacekeeping force. The UN obliged by appealing for European
peacekeepers, thinking that they dont have friendly ties with Israel.
On 20th August, Dan Halutz conceded that his army had failed to
knock out Hezbollah in more than a month long war. Israeli Defence
Minister said that his country would examine the mistakes made during the
offensive to prepare for the next round of war.
After describing the horrifying sight of the death and destruction,
particularly in southern Lebanon, Barucha Calamity Peller wrote: Leave the
rubble. Try to forget. Walk away from the terrible sight. But your mind is in
pieces, lives in pieces, people who never again will stand in the doorway
with greetings. You can walk away. There is a ceasefire but missile fall, they
fall, not from the skies, but from behind Lebanese eyes, they fall forever in
memory
Lebanese government vowed to punish the violators of the truce. Arab
envoys urged Israel to lift blockade of Lebanon. Lebanese Prime Minister
condemned and Annan voiced concern over Israeli raid. Israel detained the
secretary of the Palestinian parliament, Mahmud al-Rahmi.
Next day, Israeli troops fired at and wounded three Lebanese in
southern Lebanon, who were coming toward them in a threatening way.
Villagers in southern Lebanon remained the hostage of Israeli troops. Italy
offered to lead UN peacekeepers.
On 22nd August, UN warned of prolonged security vacuum in
Lebanon. Italy told Israel to respect truce. Three Palestinians, who according
to Israeli troops acted in suspicious manner, were shot dead in Gaza Strip.

761

There was no news about two journalists of Fox TV network, who were
kidnapped a week ago.
Mahmoud Abbas refused to form coalition government unless the
Hamas-led cabinet clearly accepted a political programme that recognizes
Israel. Haneiyah had requested him for formation of coalition government.
Cessation of hostilities did not stop the criticism of death and
destruction perpetrated by Israel in connivance with the Crusaders. The
respite led the debate on Victory or Defeat. The resolution also came under
scrutiny of the analysts.

CONDEMNATION OF WAR
The widespread destruction of defenceless Lebanon its civilians, its
life-sustaining public services, its environment is a grim and indelible
testament to your consummate cruelty and ignorance. Nearly two weeks
ago when your tardy Secretary of State met with the Israeli Prime Minister,
the message she carried was summarized in a large headline across page one
of an Israeli newspaper: TAKE YOUR TIME. wrote Ralph Nader in his
open letter to Bush.
Are there words to describe your strategic stupidity which will
further increase opposition and peril to the United States around the world
and especially in the Middle East? All this is a growing blowback, to
use the CIA word for a boomeranging foreign policy that is endangering
the security of the United States.
While replying to question about supply of weapons to Hezbollah by
Syria and Iran, George Galloway in his interview to the Counterpunch said,
America has given Israel missiles that can target not just every city in
Lebanon, but every city in the Arab and Muslim world including Iran!
Why America should be allowed to give long range missiles to Israel
including hundreds of nuclear missiles They are not a terrorist
organization! Its Israel who is the terrorist; precisely.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You are
totally wrong in saying that in most peoples eyes Hezbollah are terrorists. In
most peoples eyes, Israel is a terrorist state! The fact that you cannot
comprehend that fact that leads to the bias, which runs through all your
reporting, and every question youve been asking me in that interview.

762

Look, because Israel occupies their country and holds thousands of

their compatriots as kidnapped hostages in their dungeons! Its really very
simple except if you think only in a clock that goes four weeks back. If you
know, and you are old enough to know better that origins of this conflict
are not four weeks or four years or fourteen years but are decades old.
You want people to think that the crisis started when the clock started ticking
on Sky News.
The Guardian wrote, the war against Hezbollah has leveled the
political landscape of Israel almost as completely as it has the physical
landscape of southern Lebanon. It has severely damaged, probably beyond
repair, the consensus which has shaped the middle ground of Israeli
politics since the failure of the Oslo peace process.
The war has put all this in doubt. It has discredited the concept of
withdrawal without negotiation by demonstrating that unless you have a
contract for peace with those to whom you are ceding territory, you have no
guarantee they will not continue to attack you. It has discredited the idea that
such attacks from ceded territories, if they came, could be swiftly and
relatively painlessly dealt with by the Israeli armed forces moving rapidly
back in to deal out punishment. Lebanon showed that, while they can of
course move back in, it is a costly and contentious business.
Finally, the war has discredited the comfortable notion that there is
going to be more money for social policy. The one-off costs of Lebanon will
be high; the ongoing costs of a heightened security posture are likely to
be considerable.
A paralyzing effect on Israeli politics is already manifesting.
Quite apart from doubts about the future of particular individuals, notably
Olmert, the Labour leader Amir Peretz and the IDF chief of staff Dan
Halutz, it seems highly unlikely that Olmert or anybody else can now swing
the Israeli public behind a policy of withdrawal from the West Bank.
The unhappy results of the Lebanon campaign might be
counterbalanced if peace with Syria is pursued seriously, but that would not
solve the problem of Gaza and the West Bank. The truth Israel will sooner
or later have to face is that negotiation with the Palestinians, however
unpromising and distasteful it may appear to many Israelis, and however
much may have to be put on the table to give it a chance, will have to be
tried again.
Jimmy Carter spoke to Der Spiegel. What happened is that Israel is
holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in
763

Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an
attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think thats
justified.
Ever since Israel has been a nation the United States has provided the
leadership. Every president down the ages has done this in a fairly balanced
way This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years
to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of
its neighbours or the Palestinians You never can be certain in advance that
negotiations in difficult circumstances will be successful, but you can be
certain in advance if you dont negotiate that your problem is going to
continue and may be even get worse.
About coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the
Republican Party, he said: the fundamentalists believe they have a unique
relationship with God, and that they and their ideas and Gods premises on
the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God
anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is:
Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases
as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world it makes your
opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant.
The New York Times wrote, many Lebanese are furiously blaming
the United States as well as Israel for their suffering. Whatever anger they
may also harbor toward Hezbollah for provoking the war is being more than
neutralized by the militias swift on-the-scene response and the large piles of
cash it is handing out, courtesy of Iran.
George Bisharat said, in 1982, Israel withdrew from the Sinai
Peninsula as part of a comprehensive peace agreement with Egypt. Twentyfour years of peace on the border followed. But unilateral deployments that
only shift the character of Israeli control over Palestinian lives will never
yield such results. Unilateralism wherein the legitimate interests of the
other party are ignored is the flaw, not withdrawal. Would Americans
remain quiescent if a neighbouring power sealed our borders and airspace,
suffocated our economy, expanded into our most desirable lands and
attempted to throttle our democratically elected government?.. We should
counsel Israel to abandon unilateralism and unremitting violence against
civilians. Negotiations based on respect for international law and equal
rights offer the only way to lasting peace.
Shamshad Ahmad Khan observed, while this tragedy was being
enacted, the world community remained silent if not indifferent. The United
764

Nations was paralyzed as ever. Most of the Arab royalties and rulers were
upset and sleepless not on Israeli aggression but over Hezbollahs
incredible military resilience and growing popular ascendancy.
Hypocrisy at its worst was the rule of the game. The US and its
Western co-belligerents in its Long War for global domination and
control were seen by most as accomplices in the latest conflagration in the
Middle East, which many observers thought was yet another Pentagon war.
It was seen to be meant only to target Syria and Iran by cutting Hezbollah
from Lebanese society.
There was visible anger among the Lebanese on UNs
powerlessness. They felt deserted by the so-called international
community (self-proclaimed code name for the West or whoever joins their
fighting coalitions) which could not have been more complacent by doing
nothing to get Israel stop its aggression.
Interestingly, the war plan, which was reportedly disclosed by an
anonymous Israeli army officer, envisaged the first week to be dedicated to
destroy Hezbollahs long-range missiles, bomb its command-and-control
centres, and bomb transportation and communication routes. That did
happen, at least in theory; but Hezbollah remained intact, and perhaps
more resilient and more popular than before.
In the second week, according to plan, the attacks were to
concentrate on individual sites of Hezbollahs rocket launchers and
weapons caches. These attacks took place non-stop rather
indiscriminately as was manifested in the Qana massacre. Ground forces
were to enter the war in third week to attack targets identified during
reconnaissance missions. That also happened as envisaged The plan
reportedly did not call for a ground invasion and occupation of southern
Lebanon. There was not much to occupy anyway in a country which had
been devastated by indiscriminate Israeli attacks
Orit Weksler, a Jew who migrated from Israel to settle in USA, wrote,
some people justify Israels actions by arguing that Jews need a place to go
when anti-Semitism breaks out somewhere in the world. But as Yeshayahu
Leibowitz, the philosopher and outspoken public figure, once said: the most
dangerous place for Jews in the world is the state of Israel.
What does Israel has to offer Jews who come to find shelter? Right
now its offering grief, fear and shame. If were doomed to be a nation that
lives by the sword, as is commonly proclaimed on the streets of Tel Aviv
these days, then I opt out.
765

ARROGANT AGGRESSOR
Criticism to arrogant minds is like water to the rock. It was amply
evident from the article of Condy Rice: For the past month the United
States has worked urgently to end the violence that Hezbollah and its
sponsors have imposed on the people of Lebanon and Israel. At the same
time, we have insisted that a truly effective ceasefire requires a decisive
change from the status quo that produced this war. Last Friday we took an
important step toward that goal with the unanimous passage of UN
Resolution 1701. Now the difficult, critical task of implementation begins.
The agreement we reached has three essential components: first, it
puts in place a full cessation of hostilities. We also insisted on the
unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah must
immediately cease its attacks on Israel, and Israel must halt its offensive
while reserving the right of any sovereign state to defend itself.
Second, this resolution will help the democratic government of
Lebanon expand its sovereign authority. The international community is
imposing an embargo on all weapons heading into Lebanon without the
governments consent.
Finally, this resolution clearly lays out the political principles to
secure a lasting peace: no foreign forces, no weapons and no authority in
Lebanon other than that of the sovereign Lebanese government For
the first time, the international community has put its full weight behind a
practical framework to help the Lebanese government realize these
principles, including the disarmament of all militias operating on its
territory.
This is a victory for all who are committed to moderation and
democracy in the Middle East and a defeat for those who wish to
undermine these principles with violence, particularly the governments of
Syria and Iran. While the entire world has spent the past month working for
peace, the Syrian and Iranian regimes have sought to prolong and intensify
the war that Hezbollah started. In fact, America has been doing exactly that.
The agreement we reached last week is a good step, but it is only a
first step. Though we hope that it will lead to a permanent ceasefire, no one
should expect an immediate stop to all acts of violence Looking ahead,
our most pressing challenge is to help the hundreds of thousands of
displaced people within Lebanon to return to their homes and rebuild their

766

lives For our part, the United States is helping to lead relief efforts for the
people of Lebanon, and we fully support them as they rebuild their country.
Her distorted perception, expressed in her own words, is the product
of mind distorted by extreme prejudices, hatred and the decades-old habit of
telling lies. She promised nothing else but continuation of the pursuit of
aims which could not be achieved through use of force. No wonder young
presenters of a TV programme called her KATCHRA RANI and Anaconda
Rice.
The Guardian wrote, the motives of the US administration are easy to
understand. The neocons believe that, by attacking Hezbollah, Israel is
helping them to confront Iran. Its bombing raids could even be a wet run
for an assault on Irans nuclear facilities. While a full-scale invasion of that
country is impossible, fighting the guerrillas they regard as Iranian proxies is
the next best thing.
The Israeli columnist Tanya Reinhart reminds us that David BenGurion, the founder of the state of Israel, believed that its borders should be
natural: the Jordan River in the east, the Suez Canal and Sharm el-Sheikh
in the south-west and south, and the Litani River in the north In his book
The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, the historian Avi Shlaim
describes Ben-Gurions fantastic plan for annexing southern Lebanon
and turning the rest of the country into a Maronite Christian state.
The soldiers planning this assault envisaged an operation lasting for
three weeks. They would storm into Lebanon, eliminate Hezbollah and
storm out again. Since the attack began, Israel has been pressing for
someone else the multinational force to patrol southern Lebanon
on its behalf.
Faced with emboldened enemies, they (Israeli Defence Forces) can
demand more resources and greater powers. The generals did not intend
to lose, but even this disaster has done them no harm. It has made the Israeli
people less secure and therefore more inclined to vote for those who promise
to defend them.
Omer Salam from Abu Dhabi wrote, Bush continues to refer to
Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, knowing very well that Muslim masses
consider Hezbollah fighters heroes. The US continues to supply the latest
weapons to Israel, but demands that Iran and Syria not to supply
weapons to Hezbollah. The idea of reshaping the Middle East proposed by
Bush and Blair is clearly off track, and the plan they thought would be a
prelude to an attack on Iran has backfired.
767

Now that Israel has militarily failed to achieve its objective, it is

asking the UN and the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah. After
shredding Lebanon to pieces, Israel is asking the Lebanese government to
disarm the only resistance which brought dignity and pride to the people of
that country.
The New York Times commented, Israelis believe, as we do, that Mr
Olmert was right to respond firmly to Hezbollahs cross-border
provocations. Given the implacable hatred of its enemies, Israel cannot
afford to show weakness. But it is even more important that whatever it does
is done successfully. The military campaign failed to achieve its stated
objectives despite its heavy toll in Lebanese and Israeli lives. Now, Israelis
have a right to ask whether Mr Olmert rashly raised the ante by demanding
the military destruction of Hezbollah without having any clear and realistic
strategy for achieving such an ambitious aim.
Washington might have helped rescue them from their predicament,
but it did not. President Bush still has not learned the difference between
supporting Israel and uncritically endorsing the policies of fallible Israeli
leaders. That often hurts Israels larger interests, and Americas as well, as it
did in this case.
Washington helps Israel best when it supplements, and where
necessary restrains, Israeli actions, not when it acts as a mindless echo
chamber. America abdicated leadership in this crisis, leaving Mr Olmert
to deal with the messy outcome.
Bush Administration was strongly criticized for its arrogance. Tariq
Fatemi said, earlier administrations, while sensitive to Israels interests, had
nevertheless sought to project an image of balance and fairness. American
assistance was provided to Israel quietly, even surreptitiously, to ensure what
came to be known as plausible deniability. The Bush Administration, on
the other hand, is doing so publicly and aggressively.
Israels massive air raids that succeeded in destroying much of the
economic infrastructure of this small and peaceful country were of little
relevance either. But the real villains, as far as the Americans are
concerned, are the Iranians. Nobody is willing to question this, given the
bitter hostility between the two countries ever since the ouster of the Shah.
Many reasons are advanced for this, including the belief that Iran is
sponsoring terrorism across the globe. Moreover, the Iranian presidents
statements, especially those about Israel, have strengthened the belief that he
is not only anti-Semitic, but that his country is implacably opposed to Israel
768

and possibly determined to destroy it as well. There are others who claim
that Iran instigated this crisis to divert the worlds focus away from its
nuclear weapons programme.
Off-the-record meetings with more credible analysts in Washington,
however, revealed a more nuanced picture. Many of them did not hesitate to
admit that the Lebanon war could not have come at a more opportune
moment for the Bush Administration when seen in the context of Iraq.
In such a scenario, the administrations strong and enthusiastic
support for Israel, that prevented the UN from even considering a
possible ceasefire in Lebanon for a month so that Israel could achieve its
war objectives in that country, has brought it rich dividends at home. The
administration has earned Kudos from the traditionally pro-Israeli lobbies,
and, more importantly, given fresh sustenance to the Christian right and the
neo-conservatives, who had been expressing the fear that under Condoleezza
Rices influence, the president was wavering in his commitment to the neocon agenda that had dominated his administration in the first term.
In any case, the Lebanon war, as seen in Washington, has gone
through major evolution. It started off with an understanding of and
admiration for Israeli policies. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was
hailed as a bold and forceful leader, a genuine protg of Ariel Sharon, and
doing America a favour by his willingness to knock out Hezbollah. This
sense of excitement and expectation was best reflected in Condoleezza
Rices now infamous remark that invasion was the harbinger of the birth
pangs of a new Middle East.
US expectations were soon transformed into disappointment with
the Israelis and anger at Hezbollah, especially when it turned out that the
latter were not fighting as other armies had and were showing far greater
skill and grit than expected. Surely, it must be on account of the weapons
and the money that the Iranians were providing them, otherwise, like other
Arabs, they should have abandoned the battlefield and surrendered to the
professional skill and superior weaponry of Israel, it was argued here.
There is, however, a growing concern and grudging admission that
the latest adventure has been a serious setback for the Israeli state and its
ally, the United States. The embarrassment is greater now that the word
has leaked out that not only had Israel received the green light for the
invasion, but had discussed this operation with both the US and the UK.
Bush may claim a major victory for Israel as he did after the ceasefire was

769

announced, but even the Israelis are admitting that they made mess of
everything.
Hezbollahs success in raining down rockets, virtually at will, on
Israeli cities, has been another surprise. This led Hillel Frish of the Begin
Centre to remark that technology has taken a blow in the war, and that this
will surely result in major shifts in Israels military strategy and tactics.
Most worrying for the US, it is Iran that appears to have gained the
most from this conflict. Its effectiveness and credibility have been enhanced
and it has proven itself a major player in the region.
Another casualty of the war has been the American pretence that
it remains committed to the promotion of democracy in the Middle East.
This is even more ironic when it is recalled that only last summer Secretary
Rice, in an emotional speech in Cairo, had declared: there are those who say
that democracy leads to chaos, or conflict or terror. Freedom and democracy
are the only ideas powerful enough to overcome hatred and violence.
All said and done, the arrogance of the aggressor remained in place.
Gulf News wrote, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the world that
the fight against Hezbollah was not over. He made this caveat while at the
same time declaring Israel would observe UN Resolution 1701, which called
a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Few doubted Olmert,
for in the eyes of the Israeli government, there was unfinished business to
take care of, not least being the complete disarming of the Hezbollah
regime And that is exactly what Olmert has done. For on Friday, Israeli
commandos carried out a raid in the Bakaa Valley in Lebanon; in the
purported belief that it was to prevent transfer of arms from Iran and Syria to
Hezbollah.
Jordan Times was of the view that conventional wisdom says that
when a war ends without a winner or loser, another war will soon erupt
as sure as the sun rises every morning. The rhetoric now emerging from
Israel suggests that it is expecting another round of fighting sooner or later.
Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu is already talking
about another round of fighting to finish what he calls the unfinished war
with Hezbollah. Netanyahu declared in the Knesset on Monday that Israel
had failed in its war against Hezbollah and predicted that there is no
escaping another war!
Israel may exploit the internal Lebanese debate about disarming
Hezbollah as suggested in Resolution 1701, or the eventual withdrawal of

770

its forces to a point beyond the Litani River, to reignite another round of
fighting sooner rather than later.
Israeli warplanes are still patrolling the skies of Lebanon and the
Israeli navy and air force are still imposing a blockade of the country by sea
and air in defiance of Resolution 1701. There is growing fear, therefore, that
the stage is being rapidly set for another explosion unless both sides
faithfully respect what they solemnly agreed to after the adoption of the
resolution.

VICTORY OR DEFEAT
The war ended in a stalemate, but left the situation ripe for debating as
to who won or lost in the conflict. Reporting from battlefield, Robert Fisk
said, you have to be down here with the Hezbollah amid this terrifying
destruction way south of Litani River, in the territory from which Israel
once vowed to expel them to realize the nature of the past month of war
and its enormous political significance to the Middle East. Israels mighty
army has already retreated from the neighbouring village of Ghandoutiya
after losing 40 men in just over 36 hours of fighting. It has not even
managed to penetrate the smashed town of Khiam where the Hezbollah
were celebrating yesterday afternoon. In Srifa, I stood with Hezbollah men
looking at the empty roads to the south and could see all the way to Israel
and the settlement of Mirgav Am on the other side of the frontier. This is not
the way the war was supposed to have ended for Israel.
Far from humiliating Iran and Syria which was the IsraeliAmerican plan these two supposedly pariah states have been left
untouched and the Hezbollahs reputation lionized across the Arab
World. The opportunity which President George Bush and his Secretary of
State, Condoleezza Rice, apparently saw in the Lebanon war has turned out
to be an opportunity for Americas enemies to show the weakness of Israels
army. Indeed, last night, scarcely any Israeli armour was to be seen inside
Lebanon just one solitary tank could be glimpsed outside Bint Jbeil and
the Israelis had retreated even from the safe Christian town of Marjayoun.
It is now clear that the 30,000-strong Israeli army reported to be racing north
to the Litani River never extended. In fact, it is unlikely that there were
yesterday more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers left in all of southern Lebanon,
although they did become involved in two firefights during the morning,
hours after the UN-ceasefire went into effect.
Down the coast road from Beirut, meanwhile, came a massive exodus
of tens of thousands of Shia families, bedding piled on the roofs of their
771

cars, many of them sporting Hezbollah flags and pictures of Sayed Hassan
Nasrallah, Hezbollahs chairman, on their windscreens. At the massive
traffic jams around the broken motorway bridges and craters which litter the
landscape, the Hezbollah was even handing out yellow and green
victory flags, along with official notices urging parents not to allow
children to play with the thousands of unexploded bombs that now lie across
the landscape.
But to what are these people returning? Haj Ali Dakroub, a 42-year
old construction manager, lost part of his home in Israels 1996
bombardment of Srifa. Now his entire house has been flattened. What is
here that Israel should destroy all this? he asked. We dont deny that the
resistance was in Srifa. It was here before and it will be here in future.
But in this house lived only my family. So why would Israel bomb it?
I am going to rebuild my home with my two sons, he insisted. Israel
may come back in 10 years and destroy it all over again and then Ill just
rebuild it all over again. This was Hezbollah victory. The Israelis were able
to defeat all the Arab countries in six days in 1967 but here they could not
defeat the resistance in a month. These resistance men would come out of
the ground and shoot back. They are still here.
In another dispatch, he commented on Syrian Presidents speech with
his anti-Syrian mindset. There was plenty of hyperbole in the Assad speech.
A conflict that has cost 1,000 Lebanese civilian lives can hardly be called
a glorious battle but he did at least reflect more reality than his opposite
number in Washington who, driven by self-delusion or his love of Israel,
claimed that Hezbollah had been defeated in Lebanon.
It is clear that President Assad now sees himself back at the centre of
Arab power after his armys humiliating retreat from Lebanon last year.
There was no more need for defeatism among Arabs, he said a
sentiment widely held in the real Arab World but quite absent from President
Bushs fantasy Middle East.
The truth is Israel opened its attack on Lebanon by claiming the
Lebanese government was responsible for Hezbollahs attack which it
clearly was not and that its military actions would achieve the liberation of
the captured soldiers This, the Israelis have signally failed to do. The
loss of 40 soldiers in just 36 hours and the successful Hezbollah attacks
against Israeli armour in Lebanon were a disaster for the Israeli army.
The fact that Syria could bellow about the achievements of
Hezbollah while avoiding the destruction of a blade of grass inside Syria
772

suggests a cynicism that has yet to be grasped inside the Arab World. But
for now, Syria has won. Iran, as Hezbollahs principal supporter, clearly
thinks so too.
Scott Atran opined that whatever the endgame between Israel,
Hezbollah and Hamas, one thing is certain: Israels hopes of ensuring its
security by walling itself off from resentful neighbours are dead. One
lesson from Israels assault on Lebanon and its military operation in Gaza is
that the missiles blow back.
Mr. Haneiyahs government had just agreed to a historic compromise
with Fatah and its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas, forming a national
coalition that implicitly accepts the coexistence alongside Israel. But this
breakthrough was quickly overshadowed by Israels offensive into Gaza
The Israeli offensive also had a larger strategic goal: to destroy whatever
potential the Hamas government had to prevent Israel from unilaterally
redrawing its boundaries to include some West Bank settlements
David Hirst said, what is new and dramatically so about this
campaign is its outcome. Arabs soon dubbed this the sixth Arab-Israeli war,
and for some of them and indeed for some Israelis it already ranks, in its
strategic, psychological and political consequences, as perhaps the most
significant since Israels war of independence in 1948.
What, on July 12, made Hezbollahs seizure of two soldiers so
unbearable was not that it was a terrorist act; it was that allowed to pass
without an appropriate response it would have constituted a grievous blow
to that deterrent power. But with the extraordinary shortcomings of that
response it has not only failed to repair its deterrent power, it has
undermined it as ever before.
Hezbollah achieved this in various ways. On the strictly military
level, a small band of irregulars kept at bay one of the worlds most powerful
armies for over a month, and inflicted remarkable losses on it; the manner in
which it did this a combination of professional skills, ingenuity, intrepidity,
meticulous preparation, masterful use of anti-tank missiles, brilliant
organization, labyrinthine underground defences is only now fully coming
to light.
It is not just Hezbollahs performance in itself that has changed the
balance of power at Israels expense; it is the example it sets for the whole
region. In his way Hassan Nasrallah is now an even more inspiring Arab
hero than Nasser was; Hezbollahs achievement has had an electrifying
impact on the Arab and Muslim masses that largely transcends the otherwise
773

growing, region-wide Sunni-Shia divide; it will contribute to their further

radicalization and, if that is not appeased by the Arab regimes, to upheavals
in the whole existing order.
Gilbert Achcar opined that Israel could not inflict a major military
defeat or actually any defeat whatsoever on Hezbollah. In this sense,
Hezbollah is undoubtedly the real political victor and Israel the real
loser in the 33-day war that erupted on July 12, and no speech by Ehud
Olmert or George Bush can alter this obvious truth.
The central goal of the Israeli onslaught was, of course, to destroy
Hezbollah. Israel sought to achieve this goal through the combination of
three major means. The first one consisted in dealing Hezbollah a fatal blow
through an intensive post-heroic, i.e. cowardly bombing campaign
exploiting Israels overwhelming and asymmetric advantage in
firepower.
The second means pursued consisted in turning Hezbollahs mass
base among Lebanese Shiites against the party, which Israel would designate
as responsible for their tragedy through a frenzied PSYOP campaign The
third means consisted in massively and gravely disrupting the life of the
Lebanese population as a whole and holding it hostage through an air, sea,
and land blockade so as to incite this population, especially the
communities other than Shiite, against Hezbollah, and thus create a
political climate conducive to military action by the Lebanese army
against the Shiite organization.
This project has actually been the goal of Washington and Paris
ever since they worked together on producing UN Security Council
Resolution 1559 in September 2004 that called for the withdrawal of Syrian
troops from Lebanon and the disbanding and disarming of all Lebanese and
non-Lebanese militias, i.e. Hezbollah and the organizations of the
Palestinians in their refugee camps.
This disappointing outcome (of elections) prompted Washington to
give Israel a green light for its military intervention. It needed only a suitable
pretext, which the Hezbollahs cross-border operation on July 12 provided.
Measured against the central goal and the three means described above,
the Israeli offensive was a total and blatant failure.
According to the Guardian, those who lost were the people of
Lebanon and northern Israel, of course, and maybe one day the rest of
us; the civilians in the Israeli government, perhaps including Ehud Olmert;
but not Hezbollah, who are now proclaimed as heroes in Muslim nations
774

across the Middle East. Not Bush or Blair, for whom every attack by
terrorists even those motivated by opposition to their policies is a further
vindication of their war on terror.
Patrick Seale was of the view that Israeli strategists and their neocon
allies in Washington see Hezbollah as a forward outpost of Iran. With the
Lebanon war, they tried to destroy Hezbollah in order to weaken Iran and
make it more vulnerable to attack. They wanted to rob Iran of the ability
to hit back by means of Hezbollah, but failed.
Fawaz Turki wrote, war, especially peoples war, has a dialectic all its
own. You win by ensuring that the political goals of your enemy, pursued in
this case via military means, will continue to elude him. To that extent, we
can say that Hezbollah has won the war simply because it was able to
thwart US designs in Lebanon. And lest we forget, this was an American
war fought by it in Lebanon through its Israeli proxy Its not that the
Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked into, but there was a strong feeling
in the White House that sooner or later the Israelis were going to do it.
Hirsh tells us, President George W Bush, forever protective of Israel,
was anxious to see that Hezbollahs missiles were destroyed before his
projected assault on Iran, that third leg of the tripod known as the axis of
evil, whose nuclear sites he was determined to destroy.
The cheap war turned expensive for Lebanon, for the Israeli entity
and for the United States. The Lebanese people, with more than a thousand
dead, mostly civilians, a million harrowed and beaten refugees The
Israelis, with more than 160 dead, most of them tellingly soldiers, got a
taste of their own medicine for the first time since 1948
After Lebanon, Washington will discover, to its chagrin, that gusts of
social and political change will indeed blow across the Middle East, but not
those it had anticipated or planned for. Contrary to its expectations, the
Lebanese people did not turn against Hezbollah, and other Arabs,
remembering Condy Rices callous observation about how we were
witnessing the birth pangs of a new Middle East How dumb and dumber
can you be when, motivated by imperial hubris, you persist in doing the
same thing The only cheap thing about the war was the cheap thrill we all
got out of knowing that, in their designs on that sad land, the tricksters
were tricked.
Dr Farrukh Saleem argued, its Hezbollah that is engaging Americas
chief lackey, and its Iran that is now shaping Wests foreign policy agenda.
Hezbollah has won because it hasnt lost. Israel has lost because it hasnt
775

won. For Israel, not winning amounts to loosing. For Hezbollah, not
losing amounts to winning.
Sibghatullah Khan was of the view that changing the course of
history, Hezbollah has inflicted the worst ever defeat on Israel since its
creation. When Israeli newspapers asked for governments resignation,
Bushs talking of Israels victory sounded like the latest joke. The popularity
of Ehud Olmert has plummeted to all time low, 45 percent. Imagine the
warrior queen, Condoleezza Rice, with her, New Middle East theory,
silhouetted against the jubilant crowd listening fondly to indomitable Hassan
Nasrallahs victory speech.
That is how sometimes wars deliver the goods. Is this the beginning
of the end of the American Empire and Israels hegemony in the Middle
East? After all, Hezbollah is the only Arab force that has fought Israel to
standstill.
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine are no doubt highly
motivated and patriotic militias, Burhanuddin Hasan acknowledged, but
the ground reality is that they cannot destroy Israel which is militarily
much stronger and is supported by the United States.
Nasim Zehra noted, despite the political and diplomatic support
extended to Israel through Resolution 1701, the Israelis have experienced a
major military and psychological setback after the one-month-long
encounter with the worlds most effective guerrilla force. Significantly, the
Lebanese, Palestinian and broadly Arab spirit has acquired a new robustness
in recent weeks.
Washington failure in Lebanon is a more ominous one. A more
formidable force has emerged to challenge Washingtons dangerously nave
plans of constructing a new Middle East, of completely supporting state
aggression, of labeling struggle against occupation as terrorism, of seeking
to banish states like Syria and Iran from any dialogue process by branding
them terrorists or supporters of terrorists. Its ways of tackling terrorism are
augmenting the forces of political extremism and swelling the ranks of those
resorting to terrorism.
Significantly, in the post-UNSC Resolution period the US president
has been propagating Israeli innocence and Hezbollah defeat. Helping to
reinforce the Israeli narrative of the war Bushs own fantastic narration was
Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah
suffered a defeat in this crisis, the president said at the State Department.

776

Desperate to counter the reality of Hezbollahs military

achievements, Bush argues that Hezbollah, of course, has got a fantastic
propaganda machine, and theyre claiming victories. The president
chooses to overlook the reality that Hezbollah has preserved its fighting
capability despite Israels continuous bombardment. Its ability to send
rockets flying into Israel, to retaliate against Israeli bombardment of civilian
areas, remained intact. It has also inflicted severe human and material losses
on the Israeli military. but how can you claim victory, he demands, when,
at one time, you were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon,
and now youre going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an
international force?
What, then, has its mentor state bestowed upon Israel: Mere survival,
virtual isolation in its neighbourhood and an aggressive obsession with
security. Was this the best a mentor could have passed down to its protg?
Admittedly, the circumstances of its creation and the initial years, when the
Arab states attempted to undo the wrong of its creation, would have meant
battle for its survival.
It would be appropriate to see how a rational Israeli, Uri Avnery,
viewed the outcome of war. The Lebanese army will be deployed along the
border, side by side with a large international force. This is the only material
change that has been achieved. This will not replace Hezbollah. Hezbollah
will remain in the area, in every village and town. The Israeli army has not
succeeded in removing it from one single village. That was simply
impossible without permanently removing the population to which it
belongs.
The Lebanese army and the international force cannot and will not
confront Hezbollah. Their very presence there depends on Hezbollahs
consent. In practice, a kind of co-existence of the three forces will come
into being, each one knowing that it has to come to terms with the other
two.
In Israel, there is now a general atmosphere of disappointment
and despondency. Its not only that the politicians and the generals are
firing accusations at each other, as we foresaw, but the general public is also
voicing criticism from every possible angle. The soldiers criticize the
conduct of the war, the reserve soldiers gripe about the chaos and the failure
of supplies.
At the head of the critics are marching surprise, surprise the
media. The entire horde of interviewers and commentators,
777

correspondents and presstitutes, who (with very few exceptions) enthused

about the war, who deceived, misled, falsified, ignored, duped and lied for
the fatherland, who stifled all criticism and branded as traitors all who
opposed the war they are now running ahead of the lynch mob.
This phase is symbolized by Dan Halutz, the Chief-of-Staff. Only
yesterday he was the hero of the masses, it was forbidden to utter a word
against him. Now he is being described as a war profiteer. A moment
before sending his soldiers into battle, he found the time to sell his shares, in
expectation of a decline of the stock market.
Exactly as I wrote two weeks ago, we see before our eyes the
resurrection of the old cry they stabbed the army in the back! This is
how it goes: At long last, two days before the end, the land offensive started
to roll. Thanks to our heroic soldiers, the men of the reserves, it was a
dazzling success. And then, when we were on the verge of a great victory,
the ceasefire came into effect.
Why was it decided, at the last moment, to carry out this
operation after all well after the UN had already called for an end to
hostilities? The horrific answer; it was a cynical not to say vile exercise
of the failed trio. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz wanted to create a picture of
victory, as was openly stated in the media. On this altar the lives of 33
soldiers (including a young woman) were sacrificed.
The aim was to photograph the victorious soldiers on the bank of
Litani. The operation could only last 48 hours, when the ceasefire would
come into force. In spite of the fact that the army used helicopters to land the
troops, the aim was not attained. At no point did the army reach the
Litani.
This time, when the ceasefire took effect, all the units taking part had
reached villages on the way to the river. There they became sitting ducks,
surrounded by Hezbollah fighters, without securing supply lines. From that
moment on, the army had only one aim: to get them out of there as
quickly as possible, regardless of who might take their place If a
commission of inquiry is set up as it must be and investigates all the
moves of this war, starting from the way the decision to start it was made, it
will also have to investigate the decision to start this last operation.
A few days later he wrote, at a televised Lebanese army parade that
was also broadcast on Israeli TV, the officer read a prepared text to his
assembled troops, who were about to be deployed along the Lebanese-Israeli
border. This is what he said in Arabic: Today, in the name of comprehensive
778

will of the people, you are preparing to be deployed on the soil of the
wounded South, side by side with the forces of your Resistance and your
people, which have amazed the world with their steadfastness and blown
to pieces the reputation of the army about which it has been said that it is
invincible.
Thus spoke a commander of the Lebanese army. The deployment of
which along the border is being celebrated by the Olmert-Peretz government
as a huge victory, because this army is supposed to confront Hezbollah and
disarm it. Israeli commentators have created the illusion that this army
would be at the disposal of the friends of the US and Israel in Beirut, such as
Fouad Siniora, Saad Hriri and Walid Jumblatt.
But not only has the balloon of the redeeming Lebanese army been
punctured. The same has happened to the multi-coloured second balloon
that was to serve as an Israeli achievement: the deployment of the
international force that would protect Israel from Hezbollah and prevent its
armament. As the days pass, it becomes increasingly clear that this force will
be, at best, a mishmash of small national units, without a clear mandate and
robust capabilities.
After every failed war, the cry for an official investigation goes up in
Israel If indeed such a commission is set up, what will it investigate? The
politicians and generals will try to restrict the inquiry to the technical
aspects of the conduct of the war. These technical aspects would relate to;
preparation for war, sole reliance of airpower, delayed ground offensive,
quality of intelligence, readiness of reserve forces, supply system, launching
of last-minute offensive, and so on.
All these are serious questions and it is certainly necessary to clear
them up. But it is more important to investigate the roots of the war:
What made the trio of Olmert-Peretz-Halutz decide to start a war only
a few hours after the capture of the two soldiers?
Was it agreed with the Americans in advance to go to war the moment
a credible pretext presented itself?
Did the Americans push Israel into the war, and, later on demand that
it go on and on as far as possible?
Was it Condoleezza Rice who decided in fact when to start and when
to stop?
Did the US want to get us entangled against Iran?
779

 Did the US use us for its campaign against Iran?

This, too, is not enough. There are more profound and important
questions This way, the war in Lebanon is separated from the war in the
Gaza Strip, which has been conducted simultaneously, and which is going on
unabated after the ceasefire in the North. Do these two wars have a
common denominator? Are they, perhaps, one and the same war?
The answer is: certainly, yes. And the proper name is: the war for
the Settlements. The war against the Palestinian people is being waged in
order to keep the settlement bloc and annex large parts of the West Bank.
The war in the North was waged, in fact, to keep the settlements on the
Golan Heights.
Andrew J Bacevich said, in the wake of the war in southern Lebanon,
claims of victory are legion What are we to make of these competing
claims? What is victory anyway? Ardently pursued, victory in the modern
era has been remarkably elusive. Genuine victory implies something more
than military success; it must have political dimension Victory that defeats
enemy but leaves intact the issues giving rise to war in the first place is
likely to prove hollow. The ensuing peace is false; after a brief interval,
hostilities are likely to resume.
Frustrated American hawks and some anxious Israelis now want
to up the ante. Believing that big victories require big wars, some advocate
attacking Iran. The appeal is clear: At least in its initial stages, a war with
Iran would play to the US or Israeli strong suit. It would be a war of shock
and awe rather than of ambushes and roadside bombs. But even if a war
against Iran were winnable, militarily a large assumption indeed would
victory solve our political problems? History says dont count on it.
The Washington Post wrote, who won the 34-day war in Lebanon?
Hezbollah says it did; President Bush claims the opposite. In fact, much of
the answer depends on what happens next. Its more than possible that
Hezbollah will rearm, resume its prior positions and present an even greater
threat to Israel in a year or two than it did before. But things could go
differently if Lebanons government, the UN and the major powers of the
Security Council keep the promises they made last week.
Neither Iran nor Syria, Hezbollahs financial backers and arms
suppliers, had accepted the terms of the resolution, which the Security
Council adopted on a 15-to-0 vote with the support of Lebanons
government. in fact, on Tuesday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad delivered

780

a speech of such venomous intransigence (The fact that Israel should know
is that each new generation will hate Israel more than the generation which
preceded it.) that Germanys foreign minister, a leading advocate within the
West for engaging Mr Assad, cancelled a trip to Damascus for which he had
already boarded his jet. Meanwhile, Israels coalition government, never
strong, faces a period of internal investigation and second-guessing of its
conduct of the war.
The Nation, Lahore wrote, according to him (Amir Peretz), his
administration would examine the mistakes of the 34-day war in preparation
for the next round. This corroborates the claim by Israels critics that the
recent attack on Lebanon was planned months before two Israeli soldiers
were kidnapped, the incident cited as an excuse for the military adventure. It
seems that the Israeli army wants to retrieve its image lost in the war
through further aggression.
This explains why Israel continues to provoke both the Lebanese
government and Hezbollah. Four days after the ceasefire a senior Israeli
commander said his government was committed to killing Hezbollah
leader Hassan Nasrallah.

UNSC RESOLUTION
The resolution adopted by the UN Security Council on August 11,
2006 fully satisfies neither Israel nor Washington nor Hezbollah, wrote
Gilbert Achcar. This does not mean that it is fair and balanced: it only
means that it is a temporary expression of a military stalemate. Hezbollah
could not inflict a major military defeat on Israel, a possibility that was
always excluded by the utterly disproportionate balance of forces.
The balance of forces in the country, in light of the mass
demonstrations and counter-demonstrations that occurred, did not make it
possible for the US-allied coalition to envisage a settlement of the
Hezbollah issue by force.
The Washington Post wrote, the chief cause was Hezbollah, a radical
Islamist force that has maintained a sophisticated army beyond the control of
Lebanons government. The resolution adopted on a 15-to-0 vote, if
implemented faithfully by all sides, would significantly reduce
Hezbollahs ability to cause trouble.
But, the newspaper had an observation. The resolution doesnt
explicitly authorize the force to disarm Hezbollah but it does authorize it
781

to take all necessary action to ensure that southern Lebanon can no longer
be used as a base for attacks against Israel.
The New York Times had similar observations. The ceasefire
resolution, which France negotiated along with the United States, has
enormous holes in it. Most notably it leaves unanswered who, if anyone
will be responsible for disarming Hezbollah. Its unlikely that any
international force will be willing to shed its blood to do something the far
more motivated Israelis couldnt pull off.
It may turn out that the most that can be hoped for is a slow political
marginalization of Hezbollah. Even that will take all the outside aid,
technical support and spine-stiffening for Lebanons government that the
international community can provide. The race has begun, and Hezbollah
is already ahead.
Los Angeles Times wrote, the president spun the UN Security
Council resolution on Lebanon as a victory for Israel and taunted
Hezbollah: How can you claim victory, he asked, when, at one time, you
were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon, and now youre
going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an international force.
Rice emphasized that an expanded UN peacekeeping force would
not physically disarm Hezbollah fighters, a task the United States
believes eventually will be discharged by Lebanon. Rice also offered a more
judicious verdict on how the conflict has affected Hezbollahs standing with
the Lebanese people. Its political advantage, she said, would be very shortlived once the Lebanese realize that Hezbollah was ultimately responsible
for the devastation caused by Israels attacks.
A delay in confiscating Hezbollahs weapons need not be fatal to
peace if Lebanese and international troops quickly gain control of southern
Lebanon, and Hezbollah fighters move north to a point where they cant
threaten Israel There are signs of progress. On Tuesday, Lebanese troops
began arriving in southern Lebanon, and they may soon be joined by the first
wave of an expanded UN force. Meanwhile, Israeli forces have begun
withdrawing from Lebanon.
The New York Daily News questioned, will the UN peacekeepers, at
whatever point they start arriving, disarm Hezbollah? Thats not the UNs
job, says Secretary General Kofi Annan, thats the Lebanese governments
job. No, replies the Lebanese government, thats not our job. And even
Secretary of State, Rice is left to talk about Hezbollah disarming voluntarily.

782

Well, then. Never mind all these ongoing UN demands that Hezbollah
surrender its weapons, doesnt seem to be anybodys job?
The Washington Post criticized France over meager contribution to
peacekeepers. Now that Israel is withdrawing and Hezbollah fighters are
emerging with a swagger, French President Jacques Chirac says he is ready
to send only an engineering company of 200 soldiers to join 200 serving in
the current, and impotent, UN force in Lebanon. The French general who
had been commanding that force will remain until his tenure expires in
February, this apparently as much as the French had in mind when they
talked about leading the force.
Dr Mehdi Hasan observed, President Bush had deliberately delayed
the passage of ceasefire resolution in the Security Council to provide an
opportunity to Israel for a decisive blow to Iran-supported Hezbollah in
Lebanon. However, as each passing day of the conflict increased Israeli
casualty figures and popularity of Hezbollah, Israel was forced to accept
the call for ceasefire.
After accepting ceasefire, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, in
his address to the parliament accepted responsibility for invading Lebanon
but said he would not apologize for the abortive military action in which 156
Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed. When the Israeli forces attacked
Lebanon, seventy-five percent Israelis supported the action. However, after
the ceasefire support to the prime minister has dropped to just over 45
percent.
Claude Salhani wrote, Javier Solana, the indefatigable European
Unions envoy to the Middle East, summed up the situation at a news
conference in Beirut shortly after the UN Resolution was unanimously
passed. All United Nations resolutions are not perfect, said Solana.
While the resolution does not grant Hezbollah the same defensive
rights, in a televised discussion Hassan Nasrallah reserved the right to
resist the occupation, saying it was the legitimate right of the resistance to
fight for its land.
The resolution does not address the issue of the prisoners, neither
those held by Hezbollah nor the fate of Lebanese prisoners detained by
Israel. It was the abduction of two Israeli soldiers a month ago that
unleashed the war in Lebanon.
Resolution 1701 also does not address the logistics of deploying
the Lebanese army to the south nor does it give details of how and when

783

the international force that is to support the Lebanese army a beefed up

UNIFIL will be deployed. Nor does it detail the withdrawal of Israeli
troops to the other side of the Blue Line, which it demands.
Despite its many shortcomings, Resolution 1701 is very likely to be
respected because both Israel and Hezbollah find themselves at a
crossroad in the conflict where each can to a certain degree claim
victory Of the two sides, Hezbollah comes out looking better, having
resisted the might of the Israeli army for more than a month.
Hezbollah has undoubtedly suffered heavy casualties though the
group has not revealed exact numbers. And when the dust settles,
Hezbollah will be blamed for bringing the savage retaliation by Israel
that left much of Lebanons infrastructure in ruins.
For Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did manage to distance
Hezbollah from Israels northern frontier by creating a buffer zone in which
the Shia militia should be absent. This is the strip which 15,000 Lebanese
army troops and 15,000 UNIFIL troops will patrol. But at what price?
Ashraf Malkham was of the view that if the Lebanese government
takes total control of its territory and Hezbollah is disarmed, the only force
resisting Israeli forces in the region will be no more there. Will this serve
Lebanons interests? Absolutely not; also, there seem to be no split between
Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. In fact, the organization has been
doing the governments job in defending the country.
The Lebanese Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said the army would
confiscate any weapons found in the area but at the same time he said:
There will not be any confrontation with brothers in Hezbollah. Israel
has, however, indicated it will keep up blockade of Lebanon until measures
are in place to prevent Hezbollah from rearming.
Defence analyst Lieutenant General Talat Masood tells: Pakistan
should send its troops to Lebanon only with the consent of the Lebanese
government, Hezbollah and other Arab countries. Elaborating his point, he
says: The UN and the US want to deploy pro-Israel forces in southern
Lebanon to watch the interests of Israel. This is not possible unless
Hezbollah, the only resistance to Israeli aggression, is disarmed. Any
peacekeeping force that does that is bound to create larger ripples in the
region, he observes. When Lebanese army is not in a position to resist Israeli
aggression, to weaken Hezbollah will mean to weaken Lebanon and help
Israel reign supreme in the region. In this situation, Pakistan should not
become a tool in the hand of these global powers, he suggests.
784

Rami G Khouri said, Hezbollah has many people working

backwards. While the American-Israeli effort to disarm Hezbollah aims
mainly to protect Israel, the fact is that Hezbollah has developed its
military capability primarily in response to a need to protect Lebanon from
repeated Israeli attacks in the past four decades. Lebanese calls to disarm
Hezbollah are motivated more by a desire to prevent the party from bringing
more ruin from Israeli attacks, or to prevent it from taking over the countrys
political system and aligning it with Syria and Iran.
Mian Shaukat Hussain from Karachi wrote, as far as UN resolutions
are concerned the UN Secretary General should show some backbone and
publish the list of resolutions of the Security Council which have been
breached by Tel Aviv. These resolutions have been treated like toilet
paper by the Zionists, with full support of their Big Brothers. A time
limit should be set on the implementation of these resolutions.
If this is not done then the UN itself is in jeopardy and will have no
moral or legal authority in this or other conflicts. Let us stand up and support
lawful behaviour by nations. Let us stop bandying the word terrorist for
individuals when nations are in fact the biggest terrorists in this world.
Haaris Ramzan opined, the situation in the Middle East has reached
its boiling point; as a last resort it is now upon organizations like the UN
to take concrete steps to draft effective and efficient legislation to
institute a long lasting peace in the region. A failure on their part as under
the present scenario would be a major setback leading the world to
irredeemable consequences.
Khaleej Times wrote, condemned by the world and questioned at
home, Israels leaders were finding it hard to carry on with this catastrophic
campaign. This is why the Israelis and their neo-con backers, who had
initially opposed a ceasefire, had been lately getting desperate for an exit
strategy. The UN resolution presented that face-saving device.
Where do we go from here? It would be unrealistic to expect the UN
Resolution to bring about peace overnight. But the proposed ceasefire that
comes into effect to day will hold only when Israel holds its fire and
immediately pulls its troops out of Lebanon.
Israel would be sowing the seeds of a new conflict in the Middle
East and strife with Arabs. Such an action would lead to a permanent state
of war between the Jewish state and Lebanon or Hezbollah; which would be
really unfortunate. For you can never hope for just and enduring peace on
the basis of injustice and aggression.
785

EFFECTS AND LESSONS

The UNSC adopted its resolution 1701 after more than four weeks of
havoc in Lebanon. According to Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political
science at Bar-Ilan University, of all of Israels wars since 1948, this was
the one for which Israel was most prepared wrote Shamshad Ahmad Khan.
Despite the preparedness the outcome of the war quite contrary to the
previous Arab-Israel conflicts. Manzoor Chandio from Karachi wrote, there
might be several elements that led Israel to declare ceasefire but the
solidarity shown by the people of Lebanon to withstand its aggression
can be the foremost reason for its first defeat in history.
Hamid Mir reported, I came back from Southern Lebanon to Beirut
and visited Steve in his AP office, he looked depressed. He broke the story
of the UK terror plot to me and asked, what have we done to British
Muslims? How could they plot to blow up ten planes over the Atlantic? I had
no clues
I sent an email to my British friend Steve this morning. I wrote, I
think you have done nothing wrong. Actually its the wrong policy of your
prime minister, Tony Blair, who is supporting the USA blindly in Iraq,
Afghanistan and now in Lebanon. You will agree that Lebanon is going to
become, a new Iraq, all the angry Arabs, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis,
Indonesians, Malaysians and European Muslims will come to Lebanon for
their new holy war against Israel and its Western promoters.
I know that Steve will not disagree with me. It was he who told me in
the last week of July that the biggest Sunni Islamic movement in
Lebanon, the Jamaa Islamiya, had joined Hezbollahs ranks in Southern
Lebanon to fight against Israel.
I have seen many doctors and even professors in Lebanon who joined
Hezbollah to fight against Israel after their homes were bombed and their
children were killed. They used to hate Hassan Nasrallah and Osama bin
Laden before July 12, now they love them.
S M Masud observed, so far, the resistance of Hezbollah has not
divided Lebanons society which is based on a religious divide but has
resulted in a unity and greater resistance. May be Israel, which has full
support of a sole superpower, is able to control the resistance of few
thousand fighters but it would not be the permanent solution to peace in the
region The region as perceived by American President is likely to provoke
786

further conflicts and division on the basis of geographical and historical

divide but on the clash of ideologies.
Nasim Zehra noted, for nearly six decades the reverberations of this
gross injustice engineered by powerful states began to haunt the region. No
military, ideological or political force has been able to kill the spirit of
the dispossessed Palestinians. In fact, the ranks of Palestinian resistance
have swelled in direct proportion to the US blunders in the Muslim World
Ikramullah observed, Hassan Nasrallah followed the ancient law
that war or any struggle cannot be won by remaining on the defensive.
If your resources dont allow you to be on the offensive both on tactical and
strategic fronts, you have has to be defensive on the one and offensive on the
other. That is to say if you are on the defensive strategically for certain
limitations, you must take some offensive actions on the tactical level. And
so on. If you remain on the defensive, both at the tactical and strategic fronts
then forget about achieving victory in the war.
Leadership that inspires confidence and faith in ultimate victory
finally carries the day even against heavy odds. The military leadership
alone cannot defeat the enemy unless it is backed by the wholehearted
support of the nation is a greater threat to the territorial defence of a country
than the enemy attacking you. The real dangers which attract an enemy lie
within as no enemy would dare to commit aggression against a galvanized
nation ready to lay down the last drop of its blood for its independence.
No borrowed strength in weaponry and equipment can ensure
freedom unless a nation develops its own indigenous resources and become
self reliant in all spheres of national defence. Hassan Nasrallah proved that
Hezbollah would fight to the last but not surrender. As a result they won.
Farooq Sulheria quoted, Hassan Nafaa who wrote in al-Ahram
recently: Hezbollah is a state of mind. It is an idea of resistance. And
resistance will stay with us, with or without Hezbollah, as long as Israel
keeps occupying our land and pushing us around. You cannot defeat an idea,
especially if it is about resisting occupation. Nationalist forces of Lebanon
and in the Arab World have rallied behind Hezbollah and supported it
because it is a resistance group, not because it is a Shia group. (The US
seems unaware that Hezbollah has never used sectarian rhetoric). The
alliance the US is hoping to put together is nothing but the imagination of an
extremist and sick administration.
He added, the empires double standards are simply
unintelligible Osama himself should have been very confused since he
787

was applauded as a mujahid in the 1980s when he wanted the evil empire
to leave Afghanistan but was demoted to the status of a terrorist when he
wanted the empire to leave Saudi Arabia.
Recently, a terror plot in London was unfolded. The suspects
wanted to target a civilian airliner. Lest one should forget, it was the dreaded
Palestinians who founded hi-jacking. Hi-jacking or blowing up a plane is
definitely a cowardly act of terrorism unless it is a Cuban airliner and
the passengers dying in the attack are not Americans or Europeans.
These double standards, however, are leading to more insecurity
across the globe. The victims of US-sponsored terrorism retaliate with
individual terrorism. The late Eqbal Ahmad aptly warned: If youre going to
practice double standards, you will be paid with double standards. Dont use
it. Dont condone Israeli terror, Pakistani terror, Nicaraguan terror It
doesnt work. Try to be even handed. A superpower cannot promote terror in
one place and reasonably expect to discourage terrorism in another place. It
wont work in this shrunken world.
All the diplomatic clout of the United States was used to prevent a
ceasefire, while more military hardware was rushed to the Israeli army. It
was argued that the root causes of the conflict could be addressed, but no
one explained how destroying Lebanon would achieve that, said Lakhdar
Brahimi.
And what are these root causes? It is unbelievable that recent
events are so regularly traced back only to the abduction of three Israeli
soldiers. Few speak of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel,
or of its Lebanese prisoners, some of whom have been held for more than 20
years. And there is hardly any mention of military occupation and the
injustice that has come with it.
Rather than helping in the so-called global war on terror, recent
events have benefited the enemies of peace, freedom and democracy. The
region is boiling with resentment, anger and despair, feelings that are not
leading young Arabs and Palestinians toward the so-called New Middle
East.
It is perhaps too early to draw lessons from this month of
madness. What is clear, however, is that Hezbollah scored a political victory
and its leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has become the most popular figure
in the Muslim World. As for Israel, it does not seem to have achieved its
stated objectives.

788

Dr Mehdi Hasan observed, President Bushs programme of reshaping the map of the Middle East The fact of the matter is that a new
Middle East has emerged, may be temporarily, on the political map after the
so far longest war between Israel and its Arab neighbours since 1948. The
new Middle East that has emerged after the recent conflict has restored
Arab pride and the myth of Israeli invincibility has gone.
Neutral political observers consider it an important change in the
attitude of the Lebanese that, soon after the ceasefire, about a million
displaced people from Southern Lebanon started returning to their homes
even in the presence of Israeli troops. They ignored the warnings from
Israeli military authorities who had banned all movements in the occupied
territory.
The naked aggression by Israel against a sovereign nation in the
name of self-defence was in fact a US proxy war against Iran and Syria, two
adversaries of Israel and US in the Middle East. After the peace agreements
with Egypt and Jordan and invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, Iran and
Syria were thought to be the only enemy countries. However, the military
operation in Iraq backfired as the resistance movement and sectarian strife of
an alarming magnitude gained ground.
As a consequence, Bush is becoming more and more vocal against
Islam and Islamists. His recent statement in which he declared Islam as a
fascist philosophy is just one example of Bushs Christian fundamentalism.
The latest aggression by Israel against a sovereign country and Bush
Administrations support for it has made Hezbollah a new icon for the
Muslims, particularly, for the Arab public. They did not approve of the
difference of their kings, ameers and dictators towards invasion of Iraq and
now they hate the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Decidedly, the latest military adventure of Israel has helped in
creating a new Middle East not exactly as envisaged by Bush. The
liberation struggle of Palestine will get a new boost after the heroic
resilience of Hezbollah in the recent conflict.
The pride of successful resistance to Israeli aggression exclusively
belongs to Hezbollah, but what about rest of the Arabs and Muslim world,
particularly the ruling elite. Dr Mehdi Hasan wrote, the aggression against
Lebanon has once again exposed the inability of the UNand impotence
of the Muslim rulers who have failed to cut Israel to its size.

789

He added, Hezbollahs resistance for five weeks against the

invincible military might of the Zionist state has not only restored the pride
of the Arab people, it has also created a sense of self-respect the Muslim
nations had lost because of the policies of their rulers at the most critical
juncture of the political history of Muslim nations.
M S Hasan from Karachi pointed out, there is a lesson for the Arab
countries in the region. If Hezbollah can stand up to Israeli aggression
and its military might, so can other Arab countries who have been
literally petrified of the Jewish state. It should not be construed here that any
military confrontation is being suggested. What is being suggested is that it
is about time the Arabs recognized that Israel is not invincible and they can
match its might, as demonstrated by a few thousand Hezbollah fighters. The
Arabs must flex their muscles to assert their rights as equals.
United, the Arabs can exert enormous pressure on Israel and
indeed, on the US that gone are the days when they were being pushed
around. Not anymore, as consequences arising out of a full-fledged military
conflict could be equally horrendous for the other side. A united and strong
response from the Arabs can actually help and facilitate resolution of the
outstanding problems in the Middle East which can usher a new era of peace
and tranquility in the region for the good of all the stakeholders.
Inam Khawja said, Hezbollah has proven that a dedicated army
even without air cover, tanks and modern artillery can halt an army
equipped with the very best and state-of-the-art weapons and make them
sue for peace It has been proven once again without any doubt whatsoever
that the most effective weapon in war is faith, unity and discipline.
It is time that military leaders of Pakistan and other Muslim countries
learn the lesson taught by this war. What needs to be done is to revise the
curricula of the military training schools, academies and military
colleges to instill faith and dedication to their Deen rather than over
dependence on material things.
Omer Salam from Abu Dhabi looked at it from a different angle.
Despite the loss of innocent lives, we can take a lot of positives out of this
conflict. The pictures of Hassan Nasrallah being waved in Sunni
countries will surely be troubling to those who believe in the policy of
divide and conquer. The Muslim masses have spoken with one voice, Israel
and the US have come out as the aggressors and a few thousand faithful
fighters have shown the rest of us how to stand up in the face of adversary.

790

Tariq Fatemi opined, it (Israel) was encouraged in this policy by the

absence of even a murmur of dissent, far less any opposition, from the Arabs
and other Islamic states. Even by the standards of their subservience on
earlier occasions, the performance of these states this time has been
truly abysmal. Some Arab leaders were actually rooting for the Israelis in
the belief that any whittling down of Hezbollahs influence would strengthen
their own authoritarian regimes.
This enabled the Bush Administration to portray the Israeli military
operations against Hezbollah as a war against a terrorist organization that
was a foreign body in Lebanon, rather than as the violation of the
independence of a sovereign state. The fact, that Hezbollah enjoys
widespread support in Lebanon and is a member of the ruling coalition in
that country was totally ignored.
Saleem Mahmood from Karachi said, some Muslim states are
keeping mum on atrocities in Lebanon because they wish Hezbollah to
be eliminated, because it threatens their own existence. At the same time, it
prevents their entering into a dialogue with Israel. This is yet another
shameful episode in the history of the Muslim world The Lebanese prime
minister wept before the world, but our so-called Muslim leaders did not
have the courage to confront their European and American bosses and tell
them enough is enough.
Salahudin from Islamabad wrote, OIC is a mere stooge and a
rubber stamp to approve western plans for Muslim countries. What can
be more treacherous to not only do nothing for the suffering Muslims of
Palestine and Lebanon but to commit troops under the shade of UN to be
used with the consent of the UNSC? UN which till now has been unable to
even condemn the Israeli aggression? UN is preparing for a resolution
calling for a ceasefire, and that only if the terms of the ceasefire are that
which suit the American, European and Israeli interests. If the Muslim rulers
individually are not willing to do any thing for their subjects and are rather
safeguarding western interests how can their group do something that is out
of the line of their individual stance? It would therefore be foolish to expect
anything from OIC other than mere showcase unity.
Shamshad Ahmad Khan wrote, and the OIC was no less
indifferent. It has always preferred to remain a spectator of tragedies
in the Muslim World. It was consistent as usual in its inaction and dormancy
while another chapter of wanton aggression was being written in blood on a

791

part of its lifeless soul. It stood aghast as an embarrassing symbol of its

absolute helplessness and criminal laissez faire on Lebanon.
Muslims all over the world were disgusted with this situation. They
were no longer impressed by the familiar rhetoric of catch-phrases of
solidarity and support coming out of these conferences with little
relevance to the stark realities of the world. OIC has had no role in global
decision-making, and has been incapable of securing justice in Palestine,
Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Lebanon.
With ever-abounding discontent and frustration against their own
authoritarian regimes and rulers, Muslims all over the world are now
tempted to see Hezbollah as the epitome of a new hope for them. It is
an iconic symbol of defiance against aggression and injustice and a model of
defensive warfare with no parallel anywhere in the Muslim World in recent
history.
But the rulers of the Muslim World are not impressed. They are
scared of popular resurgence of the Hezbollah spirit in their own countries
They just cant reconcile to the soaring stocks and stature of Hezbollah and
its leader Hassan Nasrallah all over the Arab street.
Most of the rulers in the Muslim World are at the mercy of the
US for their own political strength and survival. They have mortgaged to
the West not only the security and sovereignty of their countries but also the
political and economic future of their nations.
Things will not change unless the Muslim World fixes it
fundamentals and puts its house in order. It must regain control of its own
destiny and its own resources. Its wealth should be the source of its own
strength and wellbeing.
Arab print media kept reminding the forgotten factor of the war:
Palestine. The Jordan Times wrote, the Palestinians have endured hardship
for much longer than any other Arab people, including the Lebanese. They
deserve to live normally and with security on their own national soil without
any form of occupation by Israel. The Israeli government can be expected to
talk more sense with the Palestinian leadership once the Palestinians enjoy a
viable unity government. As long as the Palestinians stay divided, Israel
can afford to play one side against the other in a bid to postpone the
difficult decisions that have to be made in order to arrive at a peace treaty
between the two sides.

792

No doubt the Palestinian president and prime minister have learned

much from the month-long war that Israel had launched against Hezbollah
and Lebanon. The Palestinian people dont have to undergo the same bitter
experience and suffering of the Lebanese people in order to live under more
stable and peaceful conditions. Now is the time for both Hamas and Fatah
to get their act together for the interests of their people.
Arab News opined, Israel has two goals in mind. The first is to repair
the damage done to its armys image and to treat the bruised psyche of
Israelis. The second is to tell the Palestinians very forcefully that whatever
setbacks Israel encountered in Lebanon, the same ones will not be
encountered in Gaza. To the Palestinians Israel is flatly stating there will
be no Lebanon Part II in Gaza.
The concern now is that the offensive will be notched up in order
to bolster the Israeli armys reputation. Because when Israel was in
Lebanon, the world did and said little in the way of condemnation. Tel Aviv
naturally feels it can get away with similar atrocities in Gaza in other
words that it has a mandate to kill and maim.
Such a hypocrisy means that only Israel is allowed to set the rules of
the game and only Israel can play it. A new Israeli campaign in Gaza would
not necessarily seek to achieve specific political or security goals. Rather, a
fresh slaughter would pay a domestic dividend for a beleaguered and muchhumiliated prime minister and his armed forces. It would be an attempt by
Israel to balance its losses in Lebanon.
In Pakistan, remarks of the PAF chief were widely resented. Hassan
Altaf from Islamabad wrote, rather than making such absurd statements
we should be saluting them for standing up to the Israeli armys might for
more than a month. I feel he should apologize for what he has said, not only
to the Lebanese people but also to Fouad Siniora.
Mujeebur Rehman from Karachi said, may I remind the
honourable chief of air staff that for the first time we had to deploy a huge
amount of manpower on the Afghan border, arrest thousands of maulvilooking citizens, provide complete infrastructure support to no one knows
how many foreign agencies, completely redesign our foreign policy, admit
the cross border terrorism, ban jihadi outfits which were created by
ourselves for the so-called Kashmiri cause and yet been accused of
infiltration. Yet we didnt cry, in fact we didnt want to and it is not because
of our weak or strong defence but something missing in our souls.

793

Ghazi Salahuddin wrote, this is what the chief of our air force was
reported to have said: The Lebanese prime minister was forced to cry
before the media because of weak defence capability of his country and no
such thing would be allowed to happen with Pakistan.
What does this comment actually mean, either with reference to the
war in Lebanon or to the exploits of our military in wars that Pakistan has
fought in the past? Unfortunately, what the air chief has said blatantly was
also hinted by President General Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz.
At about the same time when guns fell silent to launch a shaky
ceasefire in Lebanon, our prime minister hoisted the national flag in
Islamabad to mark the Independence Day and said that the country was
committed to maintaining a credible defence at all costs. He added that the
defence was in safe and strong hands and the armed forces were fully
capable of defending the country.
In addition to the show of emotion by the Lebanese prime minister,
quite a few other things have, incidentally, happened on the Lebanon front.
Most significantly, it was Hezbollah that was claiming a historic victory.
After braving the month-long onslaught by the extremely powerful Israeli
army, the exhausted Lebanese were out on the streets not as a defeated
lot but as, in a sense, defiant victors.
Meanwhile, the mood in Israel is very different. Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert is facing criticism that he has bungled the offensive. One casualty of
the war, observers have said, is Americas vision of a new Middle East. In
thirty-four days, some new realities have come to the surface. The Israeli
army, with all the support that it gets from the only superpower of this
world, can no longer be considered invincible.
What lessons can be learnt from the Lebanon war? Yes, one can
reject the imperative of a strong army to defend a country. But no less
crucial is the strength of a people that is manifested at various levels. If
the situation in Lebanon was very unique, we may refer to other historical
experiences. After all, the Soviet Union was nor deficient in terms of it
military power. It even had its formidable nuclear arsenal.
Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in his address to the mammoth
rally in Lahore said on October 30, 1947: If we take our inspiration and
guidance from the Holy Quraan the final victory, I once again say, will be
ours. Do we really take our inspiration and guidance from the Holy Quraan?
And what are we doing to impart guidance from the Holy Quraan to our
children, to our young men and women, to the recruits in the armed forces
794

and civil services? The emphasis is on things material rather than on

knowledge, spirit and moral values taught by Islam.
In the same speech, the Quaid further said: All I require of you now
is that everyone of you to whom this message reaches must vow to himself
and be prepared to sacrifice his all, if necessary, in building up Pakistan
as a bulwark of Islam. Do not be afraid of death. Our religion teaches us to
be always prepared for death. We should face it bravely to save the honour
of Pakistan and Islam. There is no better salvation for a Muslim than the
death of a martyr for a righteous cause. Like your own forefathers you have
to develop the spirit of Mujahids. You are a nation whose history is replete
with people of wonderful grit, character and heroism. Live up to your
traditions and add to it another chapter of glory.
We need to honestly see if we Pakistanis in general and our armed
forces in particular have really developed the spirit of Mujahids and lived up
to the traditions that the Quaid wanted us to, and have we added another
chapter of glory? I would have to sadly say in all honesty that we, a nation
of 140 million with the nuclear deterrent, stand with our heads hanging in
shame.
To sum up, some political conclusions drawn by M B Naqvi, most of
which are confirmation of the earlier conclusions, are listed below:
The US and its allies do not condemn any amount of evil conduct if
America is behind that power.
Israel is treated as a civilized democratic state by everyone in the
West and can apparently do no wrong.
The message is: obey the US and side with it, or else be ready to be
targeted and made a victim of disproportionate use of force.
International law and agreed rules of war now mean nothing to the
US and its sidekick, Israel.
Use of disproportionate force by one state against another is now all
right.
The Americans justify their support for Israel in the name of fighting
terror.
The US now terms resistance to foreign aggression and occupation as
terrorism.

795

 A US-favoured state may abuse human rights in the grossest possible

manner.
The UN has been exposed as an instrument of US It is the US that
orders it around.
The Bush Administration seems committed to the neocon vision of
America creating a new Holy Roman Empire that would last a
thousand years.
The fear of over-reaching imperial power of the US has been dented.
Israel has had a sad experience in Lebanon It seems unlikely that it
would undertake a new adventure soon even in Syria, let alone Iran.
The Russians have certainly shown some nerve. But they are not
anxious to pick up a quarrel with the Americans.
China is a growing power-centre. It does not play second fiddle to the
US.
Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iraqi insurgentsdemand that the world
factors them in.
In the Southeast Asia, no major state opposes America.

CONCLUSION
The war confirms beyond any doubt that Israel is a terrorist state,
which considers itself above accountability even when it commits flagrant
violations of international law or human moral values.
The US and entire lot of White Christians have encouraged, supported
and protected the Zionist state in committing these crimes against humanity,
because they consider that the victims are sub-humans.
Muslim masses are raged by the prevalent situation, but unfortunately
Muslim rulers, barring few, are in league with the Crusaders. This
dichotomy is more pronounced in Arab world, which happens to be the
worst sufferer of unjust policies of the West.
The statement of Chief of Air Staff proves only one thing: the false
sense of security amongst the men at the helm of affairs. The threat which
Pakistan faces, like any other Muslim country, cannot be met by few fighter

796

planes the air chief has because these will not be able take off by those who
have provided these.
The threat can only be met by the people and for that they have to be
mentally prepared. The spirit, the motivation factor, which could help in
preparing the nation, has been badly mauled by in pursuit of enlightened
moderation.

23rd August 2006

BLUE UMBRELLA II
Post-resolution events kept unfolding future intentions of the
Crusaders-Zionists Axis. The western leaders continued interpreting or
misinterpreting the Resolution 1701, the analysts remained busy in
condemning the unwarranted aggression; reading possible effects of the war;
and drawing conclusions and lessons.
On 23rd August, France asked Israel to end blockade. Bush promised
to raise reconstruction aid to $ 230 million. Next day, it was reported that
thousands of containers had been turned away due to Israeli blockade. And,
Lebanon was littered with unexploded bombs. Israel said it has provided the
maps to UN showing sites where these unexploded bombs could be found.
On 25th August, EU nations offered to provide more than half of
peacekeeping force. The US was investigating use of cluster bombs on
civilian targets. Chavez accused Israel of acting Hitlers way. Malaysians
boycotted US-made goods. Most Israeli wanted Olmert to resign.
Next day, Lebanon and Israel welcomed EU pledge to contribute
7,000 troops. Fatah agreed upon unity government with Hamas after threeday talks in Amman.
Palestinians fighters released the two journalists on 27 th August.
Reportedly, Israel and Hezbollah reached a deal brokered by Germany for a
prisoner exchange in two to three weeks. UN forces goal is not to destroy
Hezbollah, said Italian Foreign Minister.
Next day, Israeli troops killed four Hamas members in Gaza City.
Iranian delegation arrived in Beirut to strengthen the truce. Chirac warned
that violence would resume without political solution.

797

On 29th August, Olmert admitted failures during the month-long war,

but claimed that outcome of the conflict for Israel was positive overall.
French Foreign Minister said Israel was beset by confusion and
introspection after the conflict in Lebanon and was heading towards
political and military stalemate. Israel sought German help to secure
release of soldiers.

CONDEMNATION OF WAR
In his May 23 summit with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Bush
offered full US support for Israel to attack Lebanon as soon as possible.
Seymour Hersh, in the August 21 New Yorker, quotes a Pentagon consultant
on the Bush Administrations long-standing desire to strike a preemptive
blow against Hezbollah, wrote Stephen Zunes.
Israel was a willing partner. Although numerous Israeli reports
indicate that some Israeli officials, including top military officials are furious
at Bush for pushing Olmert into war, the Israeli government had been
planning the attack since 2004. According to a July 21 article in the San
Francisco Chronicle, Israel had briefed US officials with details of the plans,
including Power Point presentations, in what the newspaper described as
revealing detail.
Some reports have indicated that Secretary of Defence Donald
Rumsfeld was less sanguine than Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice or Bush about the proposed Israeli military
offensive. Rumsfeld apparently believed that Israel should focus less on
bombing and more on ground operations Still, Hersh quotes a former
senior intelligence official as saying that Rumsfeld was delighted that Israel
is our stalking horse.
On July 30, the Jerusalem Post reported that Bush pushed Israel to
expand the war beyond Lebanon and attack Syria. Israeli officials
apparently found the idea nuts... Iran, too, was in the administrations
sights. The Israeli attack on Lebanon, according to Hersh, was to serve as a
prelude to a potential American preemptive attack to destroy Irans nuclear
installation.
Members of the US Congress who have unconditionally backed
Israels attacks on Lebanon have responded to constituent outrage by
claiming that they were simply defending Israels legitimate interests. In

798

supporting the Bush Administration, however, they have defended policies

that cynically use Israel to advance the administrations militarist agenda.
Saad Eddin Ibrahim observed, now the cold war on Islamists has
escalated into a shooting war, first against Hamas in Gaza and then against
Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel is perceived in the region, rightly and
wrongly, to be an agent acting on behalf of US interests. Some will admit
that there was provocation for Israel to strike at Hamas and Hezbollah
following the abduction of three soldiers and attacks on military and civilian
targets. But destroying Lebanon with overkill approach born of a desire for
vengeance cannot be morally tolerated or politically justified and it will
not work.
Noam Chomsky in his interview to Nermeen al-Mufti was asked
about any legal or moral justification for this war. He replied, we can ignore
Bush and Rice, who are participants in the US-Israel invasion of Lebanon.
We know very well that by Western standards there is no moral or legal
justification for the war. Sufficient proof is the fact that for many years
Israel regularly kidnapped Lebanese, sending them to prisons in Israel,
including secret prisons like the notorious Camp 1391, which was exposed
by accident and quickly forgotten. No one suggested that Lebanon, or
anyone else, had the right to invade and destroy much of Israel in
retaliation.
After commenting on the justification for daily massacres in Lebanon
and Gaza, he added: With a vivid imagination, one can conjure up all
sorts of pretexts. In the real world, there are none. And we may add the
forgotten West Bank, where the US and Israel are proceeding with their
plans to drive the last nails into the coffin of Palestinian national rights by
their programs of annexation, canonization and imprisonment (by takeover
of the Jordan Valley). These plans are carried out within the framework of
another cynical fraud: convergence, portrayed in the US as withdrawal,
in a remarkable public relations triumph. Also long forgotten is the occupied
Golan Heights, virtually annexed by Israel in violation of unanimous
Security Council orders (but with tacit US support).
Uri Avnery attributed the outcome of the war to deterioration of IDFs
professional competence. For decades I have warned again and again that
the occupation is corrupting our army. Now the papers are full of learned
articles by respected commentators, who have discovered Surprise!
Surprise! that the occupation has corrupted our army.

799

Inside Lebanon, why did the soldiers congregate in the rooms of

houses, where they were hit by anti-tank missiles, instead of digging
foxholes? It seems that the army has been weaned from this practice. No
wonder: an army that is dealing with terrorists in the West Bank and
Gaza does not need to take any special precautions. After all, no air force
drops bombs on them, no artillery shells them. They need no special
protection.
That is true of all our armed forces in land, in the air and on the sea.
It is certainly a luxury to fight against an enemy who cannot defend
himself properly. But it is dangerous to get used to it. The navy, for
example, for years now it has been sailing along the shores of Gaza and
Lebanon, shelling at pleasure, arresting fishermen, checking ships. It never
dreamed that the enemy could shoot back. Suddenly it happened and on
live television, too. Hezbollah hit it with a land-to-sea missile.
In the air as on the sea; for years now, Air Force pilots shoot and
bomb and kill at will. They are able to hit a moving car with great precision
(together with the passers-by, of course.) Their technical level is excellent.
But what: Nobody is shooting at them while they are doing this.
Our pilots have no such problems. When they are in action over the
West Bank and Gaza, there are no enemy pilots, no surface-to-air missiles,
and no flak. The sky belongs to them, and they can concentrate on their real
job: to destroy the infrastructure of life and act as flying executioners,
eliminate the objects of targeted liquidations, feeling only a slight
bang on the wing while releasing a one-ton bomb over a residential area.
And the ground troops: Were they prepared for this war? For 39
years now they have been compelled to carry out the jobs of a colonial
police force: to run after children throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, to
drag away women trying to protect their sons from arrest, to capture people
sleeping at home. To stand for hours at the checkpoints and decide whether
to let a pregnant woman reach the hospital or send back a sick old man. At
worst, they have to invade a casbah, to face untrained terrorists who have
nothing but Kalashnikovs to fight against the tanks and airplanes of their
occupiers, as well as courage and an unbelievable determination.
Suddenly these soldiers were sent to Lebanon to confront tough,
well trained and highly motivated guerrilla fighters who are ready to die
while carrying out their mission. Fighters who have learned to appear from
an unexpected direction, to disappear into well-prepared bunkers, to use
advanced and effective weapons.
800

We were not trained for this war the reserve soldiers now
complain. They are right. Where could they have been trained: In the alleys
of Jabalieh refugee camp? In the well-rehearsed scenes of embraces and
tears, while removing pampered settlers with sensitivity and
determination?
That applies even more to the tanks. It is easy to drive a tank along
the main street of Gaza or over a row of houses in a refugee camp, facing
only stone throwing boys, when the opponent has no trained fighters or halfway modern weapons. Its a hell of a difference driving the same tank in
a built-up area in Lebanon, when a trained guerrilla with an effective antitank weapon can lurk behind every corner. Thats a different story
altogether.
The simple truth is that for decades now our army has not faced a
serious military force. The last time was 24 years ago, during the First
Lebanon War, when it fought against the Syrian army At the time we said
in my magazine, Haolam Hazeh, that the war was a complete military
failure, a fact that was suppressed by all the military commentators. In that
war, too, our army did not reach its targets on time according to the plan: it
reached them either late or not at all. In the Syrian sector the army did not
reach its assigned objective at all: the Beirut-Damascus road. In the
Lebanese sector it reached that road much too late, and only after violating
the agreed ceasefire.
How to stop the cancer: The military commentator Zeev Schiff has a
patent medicine. Schiff generally reflects the views of the army high
command He proposes to shift the burden of occupation from the army to
the Border Police. Sounds reasonable, but is completely unrealistic.
How can Israel create a second big force to maintain the occupation, on top
of the army, which already costs something 12 billion dollars a year?
Vali Nasr expressed similar views, but in the context of US-Israel
relationship. Israels receipt of batteries of Patriot missiles was no doubt
hugely profitable for the parties involved in the transaction, but in defensive
function entirely useless. The Patriot missile batteries stationed near Haifa
and Safed, much trumpeted by the IDF played no significant role in the
recent conflict.
Disfigured by its special relationship with the US arms industry, of
which the US Congress is an integral component, the IDF has been morally
corrupted by years of risk-free brutalization of unarmed Palestinians,
many of them children. Its one thing to level an apartment building with a
801

missile from a plane or crush a protester with a bulldozer or lob shells at a

Palestinian family having a picnic on a beach or kidnap middle-aged and
democratically elected Palestinian politicians. Its another to confront a foe,
with modest but effectively deployed weaponry, prepared to fight back.
Years of racism have taken their toll too. Think the Arabs as subhuman
terrorists and you end up making a lot of misjudgments, tactical and
strategic.
As corrupted as the Israeli military who shove them around, Israeli
politicians have grown accustomed to thinking that any outrage on
morality and reason will get a lusty cheer from the US political
establishment, press and entertainment industry.
Theyre right. They did get material encouragement from the
Bush Administration, and lusty cheers from Capitol Hill and Hollywood
as congress people and some movie industry bigwigs stampeded to cheer on
Israels onslaughts on Lebanon and Gaza while the press echoed all the
nonsense about the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers being a legitimate
casus belli. To term capture of soldiers as kidnapping is yet another sign of
IDFs moral corruption or degeneration.
You can read plenty of commentary round the world, most
particularly Israel, saying this recent war was a benchmark event, which
could conceivably teach Israel that security is not won by unending land
grabs, by spouting hokum for US consumption about the peace process,
and by terror bombing of Lebanon and Gaza.
Liberals used to say to me off the record, there would be a counterattack by the forces of reason, as embodied in liberal American Jewry.
There never was, at least on any effective scale. The liberal Jewish
intelligentsia here has, politically speaking, sat on its hands for decades;
mouths zipped shut, when it comes to criticizing Israel. Even more
effectively than Americas defense contractors they have contributed to, and
indeed cheered on Israels corrupt rejectionism. Will this war make them
change their minds I doubt it.
Alexander Cockburn passed sarcastic comment. Chief of Staff Dan
Halutz, a narcissistic bully like a mini-Patton, though without the latters
tactical talents, took time off the morning he ordered the terror bombing of
south Beirut to tell the Bank Leumi to sell his stock portfolio before the
market plunged which it soon did by nearly 10 percent.
In another article, Uri Avnery wrote, Feelings of pity and empathy
for non-Jews have been blunted here a long time ago. But it is a terrible
802

mistake to ignore this result of the war. It is far more important than the
stationing of a few thousand European troops along the border, with the kind
consent of Hezbollah.
In order for the significance of Assads words to become clear, they
have to be viewed in a historical context. The whole Zionist enterprise has
been compared to the transplantation of an organ into a body of a
human being. The natural immunity system rises up against the foreign
implant; the body mobilizes all its power to reject it. The doctors use a heavy
dosage of medicines in order to overcome the rejection. That can go on for a
long time, sometimes until the eventual death of the body itself, including
the transplant.
What is our historic objective in this confrontation? A fool will
say: to stand up to the rejection with a growing dosage of medicaments,
provided by America and World Jewry. The greatest fools will add: There is
no solution. This situation will last forever. There is nothing to be done
about it but to defend ourselves in war after war after war. And the next war
is already knocking on the door.
The wise will say: our objective is to cause the body to accept the
transplant as one of its organs, so that the immune system will no longer
treat us as an enemy that must be removed at any price. And if this is the
aim, it must become the main axis of our efforts. Meaning: each of our
actions must be judged according to a simple criterion: does it serve this aim
or obstruct it? According to this criterion, the Second Lebanon War was a
disaster.
Fifty-nine years ago, two months before the outbreak of our War of
Independence, I published a booklet entitled War or Peace in the Semitic
Region. Its words were: When our Zionist fathers decided to set up a
safe haven in Palestine, they had a choice between two ways.
They could appear in West Asia as a European conqueror, who sees
himself as a bridge-head of the white race and a master of the natives,
like the Spanish Conquistadores and the Anglo-Saxon colonists in America.
That is what the Crusaders did in Palestine.
The second way was to consider themselves as an Asian nation
returning to its home a nation that sees itself as an heir to the political and
cultural heritage of the Semitic race, and which is prepared to join the people
of the Semitic region in their war of liberation from European exploration.

803

As is well known, the State of Israel, which was established a few

months later, chose the worst way. It gave its hand to colonial France, tried
to help Britain to return to the Suez Canal and, since 1967, has become the
little sister of the United States.
But after every huge step forward, there came an Israeli step
backward. It is as if the transplant rejects the bodys acceptance of it. As if
it has become so accustomed to being rejected, that it does all it can to
induce the body to reject it even more It is against this background that
one should weigh the words spoken by Assad Jr, a member of the new Arab
generation, at the end of the recent war. These words were: Every new Arab
generation hates Israel more than the previous one.
Unjust and unreasonable US-Israel approach was subjected to more
criticism. Noam Chomsky wrote, for 30 years, Washington has
unilaterally barred a peaceful political settlement, with only slight and
brief deviations. The consistent rejectionism can be traced back to the
February 1971 Egyptian offer of a full peace treaty with Israel, in the terms
of official US policy, offering nothing for the Palestinians, Israel understood
that this peace offer would put an end to any security threat, but the
government decided to reject security in favour of expansion.
Currently, the US and Israel demand that Hamas accept the 2002
Arab League Beirut proposal for full normalization of relations with Israel
after withdrawal in accord with the international consensus. The proposal
has long been accepted by the PLO, and it has also been formally accepted
by the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei
The facts are doctrinally unacceptable, hence mostly suppressed.
What we see, instead, is the stern warning to Hamas by the editors of the
New York Times that their formal agreement to the Beirut peace plan is an
admission ticket to the real world, a necessary rite of passage in the
progression from a lawless opposition to a lawful government. Like others,
the NYT editors fail to mention that the US and Israel forcefully reject this
proposal, and are alone in doing so among relevant actors. Furthermore, they
reject it not merely in rhetoric, but far more importantly, in deeds. We see at
once who constitutes the lawless opposition and who speaks for them.
But that conclusion cannot be expressed, even entertained, in respectable
circles.
The only meaningful support for Palestinians facing national
destruction is from Hezbollah. For this reason alone it follows that
Hezbollah must be severely weakened or destroyed, just as the PLO had
804

to be evicted from Lebanon in 1982. But Hezbollah is too deeply embedded

within Lebanese society to be eradicated, so Lebanon too must be largely
destroyed. An expected benefit for the US and Israel was to enhance the
credibility of threats against Iran by eliminating a Lebanese-based deterrent
to a possible attack.
In the background lie more far-reaching and lasting concerns: to
ensure what is called stability, in simple words, means obedience.
Stability is undermined by states that do not strictly follow orders,
secular nationalists, Islamists who are not under control (in contrast, the
Saudi monarchy, the oldest and most valuable US ally, is fine), etc.
Media played great role in development of this arrogant attitude. Mike
Whitney said, FOX is a fully-integrated cog in the corporate/state media
apparatus; faithfully reiterating the official statements of Pentagon Bigwigs and administration power brokers. Their embedded news team
provides the splashy graphics and right wing chatter which energize their
base and marshal public support for American aggression. They carefully
create a narrative which makes deliberate acts of unprovoked warfare appear
necessary and (even) humanitarian.
No one has violated the basic standards of journalistic integrity
more consistently than FOX News. Their unwavering support for the war
in Iraq demonstrates their blatant disregard for professional evenhandedness. Dissenting opinions are scrubbed from their broadcasts while
vulgar displays of jingoism and xenophobia are presented as Fair and
Balanced coverage.
Reporters are given immunity because their work is perceived to be
beyond the activities of combatants. That rule cannot be applied to FOX.
It is the corporate-arm of the war machine; a critical cog in the
Pentagons information-management strategy. It is as indispensable to the
smooth operation of the modern army as any of the high-tech weaponry or
space-age gadgetry.
The group which captured the Fox employees did what they felt they
had to do to address the egregious human rights abuses at American gulags
at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. When peaceful means for acquiring justice
are foreclosed, violence becomes inevitable. This truism is even enshrined in
our own Declaration of Independence.
America remained arrogant about Iran as well. Herb Keinon wrote,
one senior source saidthere was a need to understand that when push
comes to shove, Israel would have to be prepared to slow down the
805

Iranian nuclear threat by itself. Having said this, he did not rule out the
possibility of US military action, but said that if this were to take place, it
would probably not occur until the spring or summer of 2008, a few months
before President George W Bush leaves the international stage.
He went on to project the looming threat. An article on the Tehran
Times web Site, considered to be affiliated with the Foreign Ministry,
implied that Irans nuclear technology had already reached the point of no
return. If the West is seeking to impede Irans nuclear industry, it should
realize that Iran has passed this stage, the report read.

VICTORY OR DEFEAT
For the first time in its entire history since 1948, Israel walked away
from the battle field without scoring an outright and convincing victory, and
in effect what it was left facing a stalemate. Israel has never fought a war
with numerical superiority, this time the Israeli Defence Forces fought
to a standstill by a force far less in numbers, wrote Ikram Sehgal.
They could not dislodge dedicated Hezbollah fighters. This failure
shattered a myth built up carefully over the years that the Arabs could
not stand up to Israels military might. The IDF did achieve, through a UN
resolution a buffer zone of sorts, UNIFI and the Lebanese Army moved in
between Israels border and the Litani River in Southern Lebanon to enforce
the ceasefire. One doubts the Hezbollah will allow themselves to be
disarmed.
Hezbollah absorbed tremendous attrition without breaking and it
soon became clear that the IDFs forte close quarter battle (CQB), the
acid test for any army, had been lost over the years. A village called Bint
Jbail, only one to two kilometers from the border was repeatedly taken by
the Israelis but could not be held.
A tactical land battle on that scale should only be fought by army
officers, from the combat arms, infantry, armour or artillery. A
preponderance of Air Force generals in the Command HQs cannot run
a land war.
The Hezbollah suffered grievous losses in key combat commanders
and experienced personnel but those who took part in the fighting, a hardcore of 4000-5000, will emerge as battle-inoculated hardened cadres who
can be fleshed out by the 10,000 personnel in reserve in no time at all.

806

Hezbollah used a combination of classic guerrilla tactics, both in

urban areas and elsewhere, using the broken ground of (mountains and
fields) to good advantage. Armed mainly with AK-47s, anti-tank missiles
(AT-3 Sagger, AT-4 Spigot, AT-5 Spandrel and the more modern AT-13
Memis and AT-14 Kornet), and new heavier, more effective rocket-propelled
grenades (RPGs), along with anti-tank landmines and hand grenades, the
Hezbollah copied the Viet Cong in operating in small groups relying heavily
on tunnels to offset their inferior numbers weapons.
Over 5,000 Katyusha rockets were fired on northern Israel, extending
from Haifa to Nahariya. The longer range Fajr rockets with ranges of 45 km
and more were not used, neither were Zelzal-1&2 (rockets) and Zelzal-3
(missiles) with longer ranges (beyond Tel Aviv).
Sana Farooq from Rawalpindi wrote, Condi Rice had boldly declared
at the beginning of the conflict that it was time to shape a new Middle East.
Yes, Israel will no longer be the regional bully and now has to treat its
neighbours with respect. Lebanons campaign marks the turning point in the
road to peace in the Middle East.
The Hindu opined, Hezbollah waited for the enemys ground
offensive to get under way so that it could spring a deadly surprise. It
used an intricate system of well-concealed underground bunkers, high
quality surveillance and communications equipment, and a range of Russianorigin anti-tank missiles to wreak havoc on Israels infantry and armoured
units. Unable to make significant inroads, the attacking forces gave up much
of the ground they had gained since there was real danger that the militia
would ambush supply columns or pounce in force on isolated units. Other
regional armies now know these tactics can be very effective in hilly or
broken terrain. Syria, for instance, might now reckon it has a chance of
blocking an Israeli advance from the Golan Heights. The fear engendered by
the Zionist states spectacular successes in previous wars might have
subsided to a considerable extent. This does not mean any of the Arab
armies can or must contemplate offensive operations since the Israeli army
can assert its superiority in a conventional war. For the moment there
appears to be a strategic stalemate but this might not last for too long.
Not surprisingly, most Israeli analysts recognize that their army
came second best in the war against Hassan Nasrallahs Hezbollah. The
failure to attain any of the stated objectives has set off a furious political
debate. Questions have been raised about lapses in intelligence gathering, in
estimating the enemys strength, and in training and logistics. Many Israelis

807

now believe their government blundered by responding in a heavy-handed

fashion to Hezbollahs abduction of two soldiers. The more perspective
among them go further: they think many of their compatriots have
developed a distorted worldview from easy victory gained earlier military
campaigns. Such triumphalism has bred an arrogant belief that negotiated,
peaceful settlement of disputes with other peoples in the region need not be
pursued seriously because they would always lack the means to force
Israel to change its stance and politics.

UNSC RESOLUTION
Noam Chomsky talked about limitations of the UNSC. It acts within
constraints set by the great powers, primarily the United States. In turn,
the United States can generally rely on Britain, particularly Blairs Britain,
which is described sardonically in Britains leading journal of international
affairs as the spear-carrier of the pax Americana.
Sami Moubayed said, in addition to the ceasefire, the resolution
demands the deployment of Lebanese army, and eventually multinational
troops, on the border to prevent any future war between the IDF and
Hezbollah. It gives Israel the right to self-defence, however, while
denying this right to Hezbollah, explaining why the partys secretary
general, Hassan Nasrallah, accepted the resolution with reservations.
If implemented to the word, the resolution would deprive
Hezbollah of the territory it has used to wage war against Israel since
the 1980s. A Hezbollah that is deprived of southern Lebanon would be a
Hezbollah that cannot fire rockets against northern Israel. The resolution
also asked for implementation of Resolution 1559, which calls for the
complete disarming of Hezbollah, and strongly says that no arms should be
transferred to the Lebanese military group.
The first loophole in 1701 is that it does not give any mechanism
for the disarming of Hezbollah, something that neither the United Nations
Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) nor the Lebanese army nor Israel
has been able to do. The expanded UN troop presence on the border will not
be able to disarm Hezbollah.
First, very clearly, they would not be authorized to disarm Hezbollah.
They would also lack the authority to search Hezbollah strongholds or

808

bunkers. Second they are authorized to use force, up to and including

deadly force, to implement peace on the Lebanese-Israeli border and to
defend themselves against attack by either IDF or Hezbollah. Third, they
have to protect civilians, and fourth, they will have to provide backup to the
Lebanese army.
No Arab country today, except Morocco, is willing to take part in
such a force, since it would be viewed by the Arab street as a multinational
force used to protect Israel from Lebanon Olmert made things more
difficult for the UN by saying he would not accept troops at UNIFIL whose
countries didnt have diplomatic relations with Israel.
According to Resolution 1701, this supply of arms (from Syria)
must end, to bring Hezbollah to a gradual military end. Syria immediately
snapped back by turning down the request to station troops on Lebanons
side of the Syrian-Lebanese border with authority to administer checkpoints
searching for arms coming in from Syria.
The New York Times had similar views about disarming of Hezbollah.
For all of the tough talk still coming out of Washington and Jerusalem,
15,000 peacekeepers, assuming they ever make it to that number, cannot be
expected to disarm Hezbollah. Israels far large army failed to do that in
a month of bloody fighting.
What a UN force can do with a credible show of weapons and a
mandate to shoot is make it harder for Hezbollah to attack Israel or
restock its arsenal. That should give Israel less of a reason to hit back. But
theres no chance this will work unless it is accompanied by an even more
robust civilian effort to build up Beiruts central government to a point that it
can co-opt or marginalize Hezbollah.
Jonathan Freedland commented on strength and mandate of peace
force. With France in the lead, the great powers of Europe are confirming
the US rights prejudices. During this summers war between Israel and
Hezbollah, they certainly talked the talk pressing for a ceasefire,
demanding an international force be placed between the combatants. But
now its time to walk and walk, and the Europeans are finding theyd
rather stay on their chaise language.
The French are the worst offenders. In a hurry to show the
Americans how great powers ought to conduct themselves in the Middle
East, France boasted of its status as the former colonial master in Lebanon
and jointly proposed the UN Resolution that would end hostilities.

809

Of course this task is risky. It will take a robust force to prevent,

for example, the reported attempts by Hezbollah to smuggle in fresh
arms from Syria. If those weapons convoys are not blocked, Israel will
attack them, so triggering more Hezbollah rocket attacks over the border.
The ceasefire Europeans insisted so loudly they wanted will be over.
If Europe does not want the war to begin again, with all the death and
mayhem among Lebanons civilian population that that would bring, then it
has to honour its promise. And there is no one who can do it. It cant be
the US: thanks to the lunatic folly of Iraq, the American military is overstretched and the US so hated in the Arab and Muslim world that the very
idea is unimaginable.
Patrick Seale wrote, the clear implication of having both European
and Muslim contingents is that the force will be deployed in southern
Lebanon as much to protect Lebanon from Israeli attack as to protect Israel
from Hezbollah attack. The truth is, however, that the mandate of the force
has not yet been spelled out sufficient clarity On a recent visit to Paris
and Rome, Israels Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was asked to give a firm
assurance that Israel would cease all military operations against Lebanon.
This condition was set by France and Italy for their participation.
Another setback for Israel was its failure to secure the
deployment of the UN force along the Syrian-Lebanese border,
ostensibly to prevent fresh weapons reaching Hezbollah. Kofi Annan made
clear that this was a matter for the Lebanese government to request.
Syria had declared that it would consider any deployment of UN
troops on the Syro-Lebanese border as a hostile act. It threatened to
suspend electricity deliveries to Lebanon and even to close the frontier
altogether, which would seriously impair Lebanons reconstruction efforts.
Ikram Sehgal was of the view that the resolution will not restrict
Israels freedom of aggression. It (Israel) will search for every
opportunity to re-assert its myth of invincibility, since this is a matter of
life and death for Israel as a nation. The ceasefire will not hold, if anything
the failure for the Hezbollah to disarm will be used as casus belli by Israel.
This time around the war will be carefully planned and meticulously
executed by the Israelis, the Hezbollah are not likely to sit on their laurels.
Expect another war in the future.

EFFECTS AND LESSONS

810

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad uttered a sentence that deserves

attention: Every new Arab generation hates Israel more than the
previous one. Of all that has been said about the Second Lebanon War, these
are perhaps the most important words, observed Uri Avnery.
The main product of the war is hatred. The pictures of death and
destruction in Lebanon entered every Arab home, indeed every Muslim
home, from Indonesia to Morocco, from Yemen to the Muslim ghettos in
London and Berlin. Not for an hour, not for a day, but for 33 successive days
day after day, hour after hour. The mangled bodies of babies, the women
weeping over the ruins of their homes, Israeli children writing greetings on
shells about to be fired at villages, Ehud Olmert blabbering about the most
moral army in the world while the screen showing a heap of bodies.
The Nation wrote, as a result of Israels barbaric bombing of
Lebanon, Israel and the United States are now more hated and despised
than ever in the Arab world. Americas moderate Arab allies are on the
defensive, worried about the increase in Iranian influence, on the one hand,
and the growing discontent of their populations, on the other. Islamist groups
are on the rise in much of the region. And, given the administrations
seeming determination to escalate its war against what it calls Islamofascism, the prospects for even greater furies, including a showdown over
Irans nuclear program, are on the horizon.
President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may be
quite right about a new Middle East being born. In fact, their policies in
support of the actions of their closest regional ally, Israel, have helped
midwife the newborn. But it will not be exactly the baby they longed for.
For one thing, it will be neither secular nor friendly to the United States. For
another, it is going to be a rough birth, observed Saad Eddin Ibrahim.
This public sentiment has alarmed the pro-US Arab regimes.
Alexander Cockburn said, no surprise then that Sunni rulers and radical
clerics reacted viscerally to Hezbollahs perceived victory in Lebanon
war. But Riyadhs and Ammans denunciations of Shiite rulers and extremist
groups, coupled with a flurry of anti-Hezbollah fatwas by radical Sunni
clerics, have not diverted the admiring gaze of Arabs everywhere toward
Hezbollah. Reversing this situation will not be easy
Vulnerable to popular anger at home and the resurgent IranianHezbollah alliance in the region, Arab leaders have few options but to look
to the US to protect their interests. The last time Shiites threatened Sunni
dominance was after the Iranian revolutionSaudi Arabia mobilized radical
811

Sunni forces, leading to the formation of al-Qaeda and the wave of

extremism that today threatens both Sunni regimes and the West.
Washington too is caught in a dilemma. Its on a path of conflict
with Iran and Hezbollah just as it seeks to stabilize Iraq by working closely
with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad Part of the problem is that
Washington has long thought of Iran, Iraq and Lebanon as separate policymaking universes. This has blinded it to important cross-currents of religion
and identity that tie Shiite politics in Lebanon and Iraq to the rise of Iranian
power.
But the Lebanon war has turned Hezbollah and Iran into regional
power brokers and custodians of the Palestinian cause. US allies in the
region Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt now count far less than its
enemies. Anger on the Arab street threatens them, and where Sunni regimes
rule over Shiite Arabia and the Persian Gulf emirates rising sectarian
tensions could be destabilizing.
In short, the old Middle East in which the United States relied on
friendly moderate Arab regimes to manage conflicts and exercise influence
is now a region in which unfriendly forces hold most of the cards and
where the specter of unwieldy conflict threatens US interests.
Vali Nasr had similar observation. Hezbollah is not a headache for
Israel alone. The Shiite extremist group poses an equally daunting challenge
to the Sunni Arab regimes in the Middle East. For behind Hezbollahs
perceived heroics in the Lebanon war sits Shiite Iran, with its claim to great
power status. If unchallenged, the Iran-Hezbollah axis of power will end
the millenniums-old Sunni Arab domination of the Middle East.
Al-Ahram Weekly was constrained to say that the Arab World is left
in a sorry state. Israel continues to ruthlessly bombard the Palestinians of
Gaza. Its warplanes are wreaking wanton destruction in the Strip The
world watches heartlessly as Israel launches its destructive incursions;
unfortunately, the Arab World too, watches on helplessly.
The Lebanese people are united as never before. True, some
Lebanese politicians are uneasy with the new post-war dispensation.
There is the traditional Lebanese confessional rivalries and political
bickering. But there is an air of guarded optimism: A national desire that
Lebanon like a Phoenix will arise from the ashes of Israeli aerial
bombardment.

812

Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo this week will attempt to

tackle all of these pertinent issues. It will not be easy. Tensions are running
high. Still, one detects a determination by the Arab people to be more
positive. Yes, Arab leaders and politicians are often caught bickering
among themselves. But, the masses are for democratic reform and a greater
say in the decision-making process.
Hezbollah has added to the sorry state of ruling elite in yet another
way. In more than four weeks of fighting against the strongest military
machine in the region, Hezbollah held its own and won the admiration of
millions of Arabs and Muslims said Saad Eddin Ibrahim. People in the
region have compared its steadfastness with the swift defeat of three large
Arab armies in the Six Day War of 1967. Hassan Nasrallah, its current
leader, spoke several times to a wide regional audience through his own alManar network as well as the more popular al-Jazeera. Nasrallah has
become a household name in my own country, Egypt.
According to preliminary results of the recent public opinion survey
of 1,700 Egyptians by the Cairo-based Ibn Khaldun Center, Hezbollahs
action garnered 75 percent approval, and Nasrallah led a list of 30
regional public figures ranked by perceived importance. He appears on 82
percent of responses, followed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
(73 percent), Khaled Meshaal of Hamas (60 percent), Osama bin Laden (52
percent), and Mohammad Mahdi Akef of Egypts Muslim Brotherhood (45
percent).
The pattern here is clear, and it is Islamic. And among the few secular
public figures who made it into the top 10 are Palestinian Marwan Barghouti
(31 percent) and Egypts Ayman Nour (29 percent), both of whom are
prisoners of conscience in Israeli and Egyptian jails, respectively.
None of the current heads of Arab states made the list of the 10
most popular public figures. While subject to future fluctuations, these
Egyptian findings suggest the direction in which the region is moving. The
Arab people do not respect the ruling regimes, perceiving them to be
autocratic, corrupt and inept. They are, at best, ambivalent about the
fanatical Islamists of the bin Laden variety.
These groups, parties and movements are not inimical to democracy;
they have accepted electoral systems and practiced electoral politics,
probably too well for Washingtons taste. Whether we like it or not, these
are the facts. The rest of the Western world must come to grips with the

813

new reality, even if the US president and his secretary of state continue to
reject the new offspring of their own policies.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 promises a flicker
of hope. But, the Arab World waits to see if it really would save Lebanon. It
seems designed with Israeli national interests in mind. Lebanese national
interests are coincidental rather than paramount in 1701, commented
al-Ahram Weekly.
Adel Safty observed that the Resolution 1701 has brought no respite
for Palestinians. Palestinian resistance to the Sharon Plan, the failure of the
campaign to undermine the Hamas government and emerging willingness of
that government to reach a negotiated settlement were creating pressure on
the new Israeli government to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians.
Total war against Lebanon aimed, in part, at diverting the
worlds attention from the Palestinian conflict and focusing it instead on
Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, conveniently presented as the real cause of
violence in the Middle East.
Secondly, at a time when more Americans are questioning the
strategic value of Israel to American foreign policy, a total war in Lebanon
could facilitate the Bush Administrations war plans against Iran and
silence Israels critics in America.
Thirdly, the elimination of Hezbollah as a military threat to Israel
could weaken it politically and strengthen its opponents in the region, while
delivering a fearsome warning to its backers in Damascus and Tehran.
Crushing Hezbollah would also illustrate to other resistance groups in
the region the futility of military resistance to Israels awesome power.
The destruction of the enemys forces, resources, infrastructures and
properties and the killing of civilians were supposed to break the enemys
will to resist. A total war that destroyed everything but left the enemys will
to resist unaffected or, worse still, strengthened, is clearly a failure.
The failure of total war against Palestine and Lebanon is likely to
have significant repercussions. First, instead of emerging weakened and
irrelevant, Hezbollah is emerging as a legendary resistance movement that
managed the extraordinary feat of resisting Israels devastating total war and
neutralizing its historic military deterrence. Hezbollahs credibility is
confirmed as the standard bearer of Arab resistance.
Secondly, the political and psychological balance of power in the
region is being reshaped. The Arab regimes that acquiesced to the Israeli814

American project are diminished. Other regimes, the Islamic movements,

and the professional and intellectual associations that preached resistance to
Israeli occupation and to American hegemony in the region, are vindicated.
Resistance against overwhelming odds is possible after all.
Thirdly, instead of democratized and pro-American Middle East, the Bush
Administration succeeded in creating a radicalized, resentful and deeply antiAmerican Middle East. Far from being deterred, the insurgency in Iraq is feeling
emboldened.

CONCLUSION
Israel has transgressed international law and conventions in this war
and committed many war crimes. But, these crimes are far less than those
which America has committed in short period on war on terror. The real
culprit is the US: the tail only reflects dogs ferocity.
Cessation of hostilities promises very little for the conventional
victims. The force to be deployed in the buffer zone (south Lebanon) will do
the peacekeeping for Israel; in the context of Lebanon, the force will focus
on enforcement of blockade to check any supply of weapons to Hezbollah.
The recent announcement of a shaky ceasefire may represent only a
minor speed bump in US plans, opined Stephen Zunes. After all, the attack
on Hezbollah was only the first stage of what the Bush Administration
apparently hopes will be a joint redrawing of the Middle East map.
Therefore, there will be no respite in sufferings of Arabs and Muslims.
The reason was mentioned by Noam Chomsky. Thucydides gave an answer
to that a long time ago: The strong do as they can, and the weak suffer as
they must. It is one of the leading principles of international affairs.

30th August 2006

815

BUSY BEE
Two events of significance, related to Pakistans role in Americas war
on terror, drew attention of the world community. In first incident, ISI
helped in foiling a plot of hijacking trans-Atlantic flights. Saleh Zaafir
termed it as a feather in the cap. Bush though took his time, yet telephoned
Musharraf to express deep appreciation for Pakistans role in fighting
terrorism.
On 5th September, an accord to end military operations in Waziristan,
successfully mediated by 45-member tribal jirga, was signed in a public
ceremony in Football Stadium in Miranshah. This indicated a major shift in
strategy to tackle Taliban-related militancy.
Boucher visited New Delhi. On 8th August, India and US vowed to
continue war on terror. He said, some of the terrorism is in Pakistan. Some
of the groups that have designs against India still have pieces in Pakistan.
Opposition parties submitted no-trust against Prime Minister on 23 rd
August with 500-page dossier containing 30 major irregularities committed
by the government. PML-Q retaliated by threatening a campaign to expose
attitude of MMA during tabling of Women Protection Bill.
On 26th August, Nawab Akbar Bugti and some of accomplices were
killed in a raid on his hideout in a mountain in Murri area from where he
was controlling the perpetration of terrorism across the country. This
incident of great significance will be discussed separately.

816

On fourth day of the Oval Test, Australian umpire, Darrell Hair,

labeled Pakistans cricket team as cheats by falsely accusing them of ball
tempering. Unassuming Inzimam rejected the allegation and refused to
resume the play after tea break disregarding the consequence, unlike ruling
elite back home.

SERVING CRUSADERS
Pakistan Army continued fighting against own people to secure
Afghan peace. Following incidents were reported:
Rockets were fired at FC camp in Wana on 7 th August. One person
was beheaded for spying. Lashkar demolished house of a criminal in
Dara Adam Khel. Seven persons were arrested in connection with
bomb plot. Next day, Army denied rocket firing at Wana camp.
Imran wanted judicial probe into Waziristan operation. A tribesman
suspected of spying for US was killed near Angoor Adda on 10th
August. Militants fired rockets at army positions near Wana.
Pakistan handed over 57 Taliban to Afghanistan during four weeks
ending 11th August. Pakistan quizzed Briton over existence of alQaeda network in Afghanistan.
It was reported on 13th August that Wana peace body chief,
Commander Abdul Rasheed, was killed in Afghanistan in an air raid,
along with his five commanders.
Police arrested 29 wounded Afghan Taliban in raid on a private
hospital in Quetta on 14th August. Next day government released 8
more tribesmen in North Waziristan. Foreign Office denied that
Hafeez Saeeds arrest was linked to plane plot and said mastermind
Rauf may be handed over to Britain.
On 17th August, seven foreigners who had been nabbed for their
alleged links with al-Qaeda, were handed over to al-Khidmat
Foundation with condition to produce them before the court whenever
required in case proceedings. Next day, Raufs father was taken into
custody by security officials.
Former Taliban commander was held in Quetta on 20 th August. Three
days later, law enforcers arrested six foreign militants in two raids in
Peshawar area.
817

 On 26th August, ten tribesmen were released in exchange of extension

of ceasefire for as many days. Fifty Afghans were deported after
holding them for a month in Quetta for entering Pakistan without
valid documents.
Militants killed an Afghan refugee in Miranshah on 28th August over
suspicion of spying. Two days later, two Afghan spies were beheaded
in North Waziristan.
On 31st August, a soldier was wounded when a convoy came under
fire in Shakai area of South Waziristan. Next day, one suspected
terrorist was held near Peshawar. Two levy posts were destroyed in
Bajaur by unknown militants.
Militants and government signed truce in North Waziristan on 2 nd
September. FC forces seized over 200kg of high-power explosive in a
raid in Zhob. Next day, troops started withdrawing from posts after
striking the peace deal with militants. Jirga was optimistic about
evicting foreigners from Waziristan.
The blame-game remained favorite pastime for Afghanistan and
Pakistan. On 13th August, A week later Karzai saw foreign hand in terrorism
in Afghanistan. On 30th August, Wolesi Jirga condemned Bugtis killing. A
week later, Musharraf visited Kabul and wanted end to Pak-Afghan blame
game. Karzai promised that Afghan soil would not be used against Pakistan.
The US policy on the issue was pursued through pampering, pestering
and prodding of Islamabad. On 15th August, the US lauded Pakistans role in
breaking up terror plot. Six days later, US agreed to give anti-terror devices
worth $ 8 million to Pakistan and Islamabad formally requested US for
release of six Pakistanis detained in Gitmo facility. On 27th August, Abizaid
arrived on three-day visit to discuss matters of professional interests. Six
days later it was reported that Canada was considering deployment of troops
on Pakistani side of the border.
Pakistan agreed to provide logistic support to NATO forces occupying
Afghanistan. Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed on joint patrolling of the
border. Pak-US anti-terror naval drills began. Meanwhile, Shaukat Aziz,
during his visit to Turkey, called for addressing root causes of terrorism.
Islamic charity denied funding terror plot. Pakistan sought US help
to catch al-Qaeda kingpin who masterminded the plane plot and was
reportedly somewhere in eastern Afghanistan; Kabul dismissed the claim.
Shakeel Anjum reported that infighting led to the revelation of plane plot.
818

Pakistani agencies came to know about at least four months ago when a
faction of al-Muhajiroon passed on a list of its splinter group members
allegedly involved in its planning.
The suspect Rashid Rauf, a Mirpur-born man with dual (PakistanBritish) nationality had gone to the UK in 1981 when he was less than one
year old. He returned to Pakistan in 2002 and had since lived here. Rauf had
been involved in the murder of his uncle in UK and was wanted by British
police. He had been living in Bahawalpur for most of the time he spent in
Pakistan.
On 5th September, a peace accord was signed in a public ceremony in
Miranshah. The 45-member tribal jirga had successfully mediated to end
military operations in Waziristan. According to the terms of peace
agreement, the militants, along with the tribes ulema and local Taliban
were required to implement the following six decisions of the Jirga:
No attacks would be launched against law-enforcement agencies,
armed forces and government installations; and there would be no
targeted killings.
No parallel administration would be set up in North Waziristan and
the writ of the government of Pakistan would be accepted.
Nobody would be allowed to cross the border to take part in military
operations in Afghanistan; however, there would be no ban on
traditional traveling.
No interference would be carried out in settled districts adjoining
North Waziristan.
All non-Pakistanis would leave North Waziristan. Those unable to do
so would live peacefully and abide the law.
All government assets captured by the militants during fighting would
be returned.
Under the agreement, the government would accept and implement
the following eight decisions:
All those persons arrested during the military operations would be
freed and would not be rearrested in these cases.
All privileges and benefits allowed to the tribes in the past would be
restored.

819

 Checkpoints established during operations would be dismantled.

All confiscated vehicles, weapons and other assets would be returned
to the tribesmen.
The government would halt all ground and aerial military operations
and in future resolve all issues under the terms of tribal customs and
traditions.
All innocent victims of military operations would be compensated for
human and material losses.
There would be no ban on carrying small arms in keeping with
existing tribal traditions and practices.
Implementation of the peace agreement would begin with shifting of
troops from checkpoints to camps.
The very next day of the accord, government and militants started
returning seized weapons. And, ABC News fired the first shot on peace
accord signed by the government and the tribesmen. It said that Osama bin
Laden will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a peaceful life.
Foiling of UK terror plot was widely commented on by the analysts.
Chris Crock observed, it may not have been easy for Pakistan to do what
it did, but it was indubitably right to do so no matter what the petty
cavilers may bray. And the country can feel a quiet pride within the comity
of nations for doing so.
Shafqat Mahmood noted, it is ironic that our very success in
thwarting plots and arresting a large number of terrorists reinforces the
perception that this country is a bastion of terrorism. They are here in large
numbers, is the message we give across. It is like shooting partridges; the
larger the bag, the greater the indication of their abundance. Our triumphs in
the war against terror have become advertisements of our failure. Our
strategic importance is now entirely negative. The international community
is keen to engage with us because we have the potential to cause harm. We
are a nuclear weapons state that many fear, could be taken over by
fundamentalists because in their eyes radical Islam is on the march here.
M Adl al-Hameed from Lahore wrote, in future we should not
comply when the British and US intelligence agencies ask for
information about someone in Pakistan. What will happen if our
intelligence agencies refuse to cooperate any more? They will be accused of

820

not doing enough, but that is something they have already become
accustomed to hearing. So, it would not make any difference at all.
Since British intelligence is so keen to get all the credit for
discovering the recent liquid explosives plot, we should let them do the
dirty work themselves in future. After all, the accused persons (now and in
the past) were invariably born and bred in their own society and, by very
definition of the term, their own citizens. How can they be of Pakistan
origin after three and four generations? How many generations will it take
for them to cease to be Pakistani origin?
The British intelligence and police took no time in telling the media
that the accused were Pakistan origin. Why didnt they also say at the same
time that the plot would have easily succeeded if our agencies had not
helped them? Why didnt the British home secretary publicly thank our
agencies in his first news conference broadcast live the world over? Why
didnt he coordinate with our interior minister so that announcements could
be made simultaneously from Islamabad and London? Why did Bush and
Blair not publicly acknowledge our cooperation?
Why should we go on doing what is of no benefit to us? What are
they doing to help us? Are the peanuts they give us by way of aid enough
reward for all that our government has been doing for them, at a great cost to
itself and its people?
Mr Bush and Mr Blair and their agencies should not expect any more
cooperation from us unless they express their gratitude in the clearest
possible words publicly and not through private phone calls so that the
world can know that Pakistan is not a hub of terrorism.
The British government should also stop repeating the nonsense
about Pakistan origin and take care of its own citizens. Asking us to do
more is ridiculous. We have done more than anyone would have done at the
cost of their own internal and national security.
Irfan Husain was of the view that over the last few years, Pakistan
has earned a well-deserved reputation for being a hot-bed of religious
extremism that has, wantonly and wickedly, used terror as a weapon to
further its agenda at home and abroad. And unfortunately, many young
Britons of Pakistani descent have fallen prey to the extremist groups that
operate freely in a tolerant society which allows anybody to preach his
faith.

821

Many people in Britain are skeptical about the alleged plot, given the
recent track record of the UKs intelligence agencies. But whatever evidence
is finally produced, the arrests do suggest that there is a strong nexus
between Islamic organizations in Pakistan and young Muslims in
Britain of Pakistani origin.
For the first time, the Tablighi Jamaat is being accused of being a
front for terrorist outfits. This organization has long been viewed as nonviolent collection of devout Muslims whose primary concern is to spread
Islam.
At its huge annual public gathering in Raiwind, it attracts hundreds of
thousands of the faithful in what is described as the biggest congregation of
Muslims outside Mekkah. But here is what Alex Alexiv, vice president for
research at the Washington-based Centre for Security Policy says about the
Jamaat: All Tablighis preach a creed that is hardly distinguishable from
the radical Wahabi-Salafi jihadist ideology that so many terrorists
share
The government is doing its best to put a favourable spin on its
role in disrupting the alleged plot. Poor Tasnim Aslam the Foreign Office
spokesperson has been pleading for greater recognition of Pakistans efforts
combating terrorism. But she and her bosses fail to realize that while they
are determined to see only one side of the coin, the rest of the world is bent
on examining the other side very closely indeed. And what they see is the
country to which would-be suicide bombers travel to receive indoctrination
and training.
The News wrote, the international media has already run dozens of
stories all implying (some more directly) that the arrests show that the
terror networks are alive and well in Pakistan. Some of the stories have at
least bothered to mention that while Pakistan seems to be a haven for all
kinds of terror groups it is also a country that has done much to help
pinpoint and catch a whole lot of terrorists. Besides, while there may have
been this recognition and praise for help given in this particular case, it has
often happened that foreign officials at various levels as well as foreign
think-tanks have frequently asked Islamabad to do more. In fact, the current
situation seems ideal for Indian hawks, and proof of this are the proliferation
of rabid articles and commentaries that appeared in its media following the
arrests, However, all of these conveniently miss thelogic in saying that a
country is involved in terrorism but frequently helps others catch terrorists
on its own soil.

822

Dr Masooda Bano was of the view that while the domestic policies
have been shaped by one ambition, that is to safeguard General
Musharrafs tenure, the international policies have epitomized this
approach. The government has from the start promoted a militant image of
Pakistan to tell the West that it needs General Musharraf, The West bought
this for quite some time.
What is intriguing is that the Pakistani government and intelligence
agencies are so efficient that they are able to arrest a key suspect in an
international terrorist plot but they are not able to catch those involved in the
dozens of sectarian attacks that have taken place in Pakistan under the
current regime. It makes some people think that the governments
commitment to fighting terrorism is questionable.
Benazir Bhutto criticized Pakistan government on account of
situation in tribal areas. The Musharraf regime, claiming that sections of
the Pakistani frontier were ungovernable, has relinquished responsibility
there to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is not surprising that Osama bin
Laden, a man who funneled money to overthrow my government, has not
been intercepted. He releases taped messages with impunity under the nose
of the Pakistani military dictatorship protected by military hardliners and
militant groups in the tribal areas of Waziristan that the Musharraf regime
has failed to control.
The notion that these large blocks of Pakistan are ungovernable
is nonsense. During both my tenures as Prime Minister, my government
enforced the writ of the state through the civil administration and
paramilitary troops.
The Musharraf dictatorship doles out ostensible support in the war on
terror, one spoonful as needed, to keep it in the good graces of Washington,
while it presides over a society that simultaneously fuels and empowers
militants at the expense of moderates; and the dangerous political
madrassa, which I spent years as Prime Minister dismantling, now
flourish and grow under Islamabads military dictatorship.
Richard I Armitage and Kara L Bue wrote, instead of threats, we
should increase our senior-level interaction with Pakistan across the
board involving cabinet secretaries beyond those representing the State and
Defence Departments and placing a new emphasis on trade issues.
We can also take more immediate steps on the ground. For one
thing, we could focus our aid on the development of roads, hospitals and
electricity plants in rural areas With Pakistans help, Britain and United
823

States were able to prevent a tragedy last week. We must ensure that such
help is always available, and hope that it eventually becomes unnecessary
through Pakistans efforts.
On peace accord, the News wrote, the federal government has
finally signed what it claims is a peace deal with militants in North
Waziristan. On the face of it, the agreement could be seen as a breakthrough
but if one reads the finer print, it appears that the government has all but
caved into the demands of the militants. More ominously, the agreement
seems to be a tacit acknowledgement by the government of growing power
and authority of the local Taliban and that it feels that Talibanization will not
spread beyond FATA and into NWFPs settled districts.
The peace deal signed on Wednesday practically nullifies this key
position that the federal government had taken all along in its fight
against the militants. Islamabad should know that the fight in North and
South Waziristan was not only about fighting militants but also and
perhaps more importantly about checking the spread of militancy and
extremism in the area and in the rest of the country.
Sooner or later Islamabad will come under pressure on why it
allowed the Taliban such space. Will this peace agreement be able to
withstand such pressures or will the government again launch an operation?
Presumably the government thinks that the path chosen now is lesser of the
two evils. Only time will tell how correct this assessment is.
The Crusaders prejudices remained in place. On 22nd August,
Australia warned its citizens of attacks in Pakistan. British media raised hue
and cry over kidnapping of Scottish girl, Misbah Iram (Molly). Lahore
High Court stayed her deportation. Meanwhile, Singh vowed that US deal
cannot prevent us from future nuclear tests; while ailing A Q Khan was
flown to Karachi for treatment.
Steven N Simon opined, there is no magic cure for what ails Pakistan
and endangers Americans. There are, however, steps that might help over the
long haul. It is essential that Washington press Islamabad to open the
political arena to secular parties. The regimes refusal to share power with
these players has forced it to deal with the devil, providing the radical
religious parties with the opportunity and resources to mortgage the
countrys future to extremism. The United States can also intensify its efforts
to rebuild public education in Pakistan to reduce the demand for madrassas
that feed the maw of the religious militias.

824

Hasan Suroor from India commented on Mollys case. Nothing

delights large sections of the British media more than seizing on what they
see as one more example of barbaric practices among Third World
immigrants In the last week of August, they got what they wanted: a story
guaranteed to sell, and reinforce the Asian stereotype. And it lived up to its
promise. The story of 12-year-old Molly Campbell, being allegedly abducted
by her Pakistani father with the aim of forcibly marrying her off in Pakistan
has been running for nearly two weeks now with British journalists flying to
Lahore to chronicle the saga of a white girl caught up in a clash of two
cultures.
Molly, who insists on being called Misbah Iram Ahmed Rana the
name given to her by her Muslim father is the youngest of four children of
Sajjad Ahmed Rana, a Pakistani immigrant, and his Scottish wife Louise
Campbell. After their marriage broke up four years ago, while three children
moved in with their father, Molly stayed with her mother who was given her
legal custody.
The drama began on August 24 when Molley/Misbah, who lived
with her mother and mothers partner, did not return home from school.
Instead, she traveled to Glasgow where she met her father and Tahmina and
flew out to Lahore with them triggering allegations and screaming media
headlines that she had been snatched from outside the school gates and
forcibly taken to Pakistan.
Molly appeared with her father at a press conference in Lahore to
declare that she had left Britain of her own free will, the media in Britain
had a field day feeding alarming stories about her safety and the
motives her fatherwhile social activists grimly speculated about what
could happen to her in Pakistan.
A spokesperson for a leading international child abduction centre
explained how Pakistan was particularly notorious. We deal with 300 to
400 new abductions every single year and the cases with Pakistan are
actually increasing, she said.
Then on September 1, Molly surfaced in Lahore to clear up the
confusion. She said her name was not Molly. Its Misbah and I ran away to
be with my dad in Pakistan. Dressed in a salwar kammez and with her
bearded father by her side, she said: It was my own choice; I asked my
sister if I could go with her. I knew that my mum would miss me, but I
missed my family She said she had informed her mother, the police, and

825

her school authorities that she was leaving of her own free will. Im not a
run away, she told the Guardian, adding; And Im not going back there
Analysts believed that political and economic dependence has a lot do
with Pakistans miseries. Dr M S Jillani opined, political domination is
exerted through the instruments of loans and military aid. Once a
country has swallowed a dose of the two, it is forced to become a target for
dictation and blackmail. The conduits for foreign domination are the power
elite who are won over through foreign tours, gifts and other personal
favours as well as through arms twisting.
Mazhar Qayyum Khan wrote, Pakistan took the plunge in hot waters,
incurring the enmity of the Taliban, their supporters in the country and, as
the scenario unfolded, the utter disappointment of the man in the street.
Although loans Islamabad owed to the Paris Club were rescheduled to
provide relief, its best efforts to secure market access in the US has come
a cropper.

PEACE PROCESS
Peace process has almost ground to halt, except that reportedly Indian
Envoy held surprise meeting with Kasuri and Singh wanted more transport
links across LoC. Pakistan rejected re-configured plan of dam on
Kishanganga River, but remained committed to composite dialogue. As
regards CBMs, Indian programmes were allowed on 14 private TV channels.
Actions and statements negative to confidence building were in
plenty. Pakistans foreign office said expulsions should not affect peace
process. On 15th August, Singh asked Pakistan to fulfill terror pledge.
Pakistan promptly decried Singhs mantra of cross border terrorism and said
India is habitual of making baseless allegations. India claimed killing a
Pakistani militant in Mumbai on 22 nd August. Pakistan protested against
ceasefire violation along LoC in which a woman was wounded.
On 28th August, India condemned the killing of Akbar Bugti and asked
Pakistan to address the grievances of the people of Baluchistan. Foreign
Office spokesperson said, Indias purported concern for the people of other
countries is ill-advised, especially when India remains afflicted with several
insurgencies, including those in Arunchal Pardesh, Assam, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, Bundel Khand, Gorkhaland,
Bodoland, and Khaplang

826

Perpetration of state terrorism the crush Kashmiris freedom struggle

continued. Following incidents were reported:
On 6th August, one person was killed and 8 wounded in grenade attack
in the Valley. Next day, eight people were killed in violence, but
freedom fighters freed three captives.
Indian troops killed six freedom fighters on 8 th August. Next day, two
suspected militants were killed. Demonstration was held in Baramula
over sale of a football inscribed with Quraanic verses.
Indian forces killed a student in Banipore on 10th August. Next day,
widespread protests were held against murder of the student.
Seven persons were killed as strike crippled the Valley on 12 th August.
Next day, four Kashmiris and Indian soldier were killed in violence.
Fourteen people were wounded in a bomb blast.
An Indian soldier was killed and 7 people were hurt in clashes on 15 th
August. Indian Independence Day was observed as Black Day. Two
Kashmiri youths of AJK were wounded in firing by Indian Army.
On 16th August, a young Kashmiri was arrested by BSF and just
before he was about to be shot, he snatched rifle of a soldier and
managed to board the bullet proof vehicle. He remained there till
morning when the local residents of Pulwama rescued him.
Fighters killed four people including a policeman in separate incidents
on 17th August. Hizbul Mujahideen indicated willingness to talks with
India. Four days later, Salahuddin reportedly backed self-rule in IHK.
AJK Woman wounded in Indian fire died on 27th August. Next day,
two suspected fighters were killed in clashes in the Valley. On 30th
August, arrest warrants of Yasin, Javed and Mir were issued.
Indian troops shot dead three suspected militants in two incidents in
Kangan and Anantnag on 31st August. Freedom fighters killed a
policeman in Kupwara and a woman in Baramulla.
Three policemen and two civilians were killed in Doda and Baramula
areas on 1st September.
Three Indian soldiers and three Kashmiris were killed and four
soldiers were wounded in clashes on 4th September. Peace talk process
must continue, said Yasin.

827

 On 5th September, Indian police shot dead one of the longest surviving
freedom fighter, Billu Gujjar, who had been fighting for the last 15
years. In all, eight people were killed in violence in the Valley.
Tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats was widely commented. The News
wrote, What happened over the weekend could well lead to a hardening of
positions by both sides in the coming months and could well escalate if both
sides do not exercise restraint. The row was triggered by Pakistans
expulsion of a visa counselor who was detained after allegedly meeting his
contact at a rest stop on the Lahore-Islamabad motorway.
The report that Mr Kaul was working for RAW should not create
much of a stir because it is common practice by governments all over the
world to have some intelligence officials posted at their missions overseas.
In the case of Pakistan and India, with their history of conflict, the
proportion of diplomats who are from an intelligence background would be
expected to be higher than normal.
One thing that does come to mind is the timing of Pakistans move
and that normally in such cases in the past it has been India which
initiated the process of expulsion. One had thought that what happened
over the weekend was a thing of the past but apparently it isnt.
Imtiaz Alam opined, Pakistan and India are known in the world
for their shoddy treatment of each others diplomats. The continuing
animosity often makes the job of diplomats from both sides quite hazardous.
Without exception, every diplomat from India and Pakistan is considered a
spy or agent of the respective countrys intelligence agency. And those in
social or journalistic contact with Indian diplomats in Islamabad and
Pakistani diplomats in New Delhi are suspected of being enemy agents.
Given the security dimension overwhelming the diplomatic mission in the
subcontinent, the job of diplomats becomes even more cumbersome when
intelligence sleuths override the diplomat.
It is time to stop the spree of expulsion of diplomats and not make
the world laugh at us. As the efforts to cool down the atmosphere and bring
the composite dialogue process back on rail increase, it is advisable that both
sides avoid indulging in blame game. It was not a routine case of spying but
clear incident of sponsoring terrorism. There is no place for blame in counter
intelligence; it was a clear case of being caught red-handed.
Praful Bidwai was of the view that expulsions of diplomats are not
normal occurrences even in situations of tensions and sustained rivalry

828

or systematic hostility. They must never be treated as such. During the four
decades of Cold War, the United States and the USSR exercised much
greater restraint than India and Pakistan while dealing with each others
diplomats Unless Manmohan Singh and Musharraf personally intervene
and give a forward thrust to the dialogue process, it could soon become
reversible. We must not and cannot wish the danger away.
Kuldip Nayar was of the view that the present situation where New
Delhi believes something and Islamabad does not concede even a bit of it
has put the skids on everything. Contacts are still there but only on a
superficial basis. Incidents like expelling lower-level diplomats will only
increase. In this tit-for-tat climate, the governments can do nothing else.
Maturity is what India has to show when dealing with Islamabad
which is intractable in its attitude. If nothing else, it can unilaterally take
measures to increase people-to-people contact The fear that relaxation of
visa restrictions will result in more militants coming into India is
exaggerated. Despite the hostility towards, the Indians keep stressing upon
people-to-people contacts.
What was annoying at the retreat at sunset on August 14 was
Pakistans tactics to disturb the usual rhythm of cooperation at the border.
The Pakistani authorities introduced this time a recitation from the Holy
Quraan so that the slogan for India-Pakistan dosti would not be
raised
Somini Sengupta commented on Mumbai bombings. A small section
of the Indian Muslim community has been radicalized said C Raja
Mohan, a columnist for the daily Indian Express and a member of the
National Security Advisory Board. Thats what makes it that much more
challenging for the country.
The police have arrested eight men from Mumbaiin connections
with the attacks, though no specifics have been disclosed about the possible
links to the bombings. Among them are a doctor of traditional Islamic
medicine and a largely self-taught software worker who the police said had
landed a job with the American database and a software company Oracle.
Several home-grown outfits, now banned, called the Students Islamic
Movement of India. For all the finger-pointing across the border, the
attacks have forced India to confront a worrying disquiet among
Muslims at home, who have overwhelmingly resisted calls to Islamic
radicalism.

829

Praful Bidwai was of the view that its positively irresponsible to

tom-tom al-Qaedas arrival in India. This serves three deplorable purposes.
Al-Qaedas name evokes a super-human, satanic, invincible force. Even
the mighty US couldnt defend itself against al-Qaeda. How can India? This
becomes an alibi for inaction and incompetence on the part of Indias
intelligence agencies and an excuse for evading the duty to unearth, collate
and analyze evidence.
Second, exaggerating terrorist threats leads to panic and fear.
Such a climate facilitates draconian anti-terrorist laws favoured by triggerhappy policemen. But the more the state brutalizes innocents, generating
resentment, the higher the appeal of revenge-based ideologies and the
greater the terrorist threat.
Third, the al-Qaeda bogey promotes all kinds of imaginary links
between groups driven by local grievance (e, g. Hizbul Mujahideen) and
those inspired by fundamentalist ideologies. This narrows the range of antiterrorist options.
Thats what President Bush has done by inventing a preposterous
new term, Islamic Fascism, and by arbitrarily lumping Palestinian
nationalists, the Iraqi resistance, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda together
Duplicating Bushs blunder will have communal effects in of the world.
In India, it will give anti-terrorist legitimacy to Hindutva. With or without
evidence, various organizations from SIMI to the Muslim Personal Law
Board to sundry madrassahs will be declared to be linked to al-Qaeda
with horrifying consequences for human rights.
The News wrote, Mr Singhs warning that Pakistans inability to
prevent cross-border terrorism would undermine public opinion in India
which has supported the peace process is ominous. Perhaps, the Indian
prime minister should consider the public opinion in Pakistan may be
undermined as well if his government does not stop its renewed
antagonism towards this country. It would be a complete disaster and a
complete loss to hundreds of millions of people on both sides who want the
peace process to continue if Pakistan and India were to return to their old
pattern of hostility.
Subsequently the newspaper added, India has always been happy to
create functional normalization through a series of confidence building
measures, whether it comes through extensive people-to-people contact or
trading. However, it gets cold feet whenever it comes to addressing more
critical areas of bilateral conflict. Going by what Mr Ahmad told the Lok
830

Sabha, India seems not have moved forward an inch from its traditional
position. Pakistan, on the other hand, has suggested various proposals for a
possible solution of the Kashmir dispute and this has meant President
Musharraf taking positions that are far ahead of Islamabads traditional
stance on the matter.
M B Naqvi opined, the specific reason for freezing the process
maybe that New Delhi is unable to move further because of political
troubles. The Manmohan Singh government today is under siege and is
being pulled from right and left.
Imtiaz Alam said, the president has very frankly mentioned that the
intelligence agencies of Pakistan and India have a long history of fighting
against each other and has clearly offered an accord and working
relationship between the two prime and other agencies. If the ISI, MI5, the
CIA and the FBI can cooperate and pre-empt a big plot against US-bound
airlines, why cant ISI and RAW cooperate and help bust all possible
future threats to peace from the terrorists.

HOME FRONT
There were some events of significance in domestic political arena.
On 7 August, President and Prime Minister held meetings with warring
parties of the ruling elite of Sindh and urged them to bury the hatchet. About
a week later, formerly top personalities asked Musharraf to quit as army
chief.
th

No trust move against Prime Minister was formalized on 25th August,

but the Opposition was not allowed to read the charge sheet. Next day, the
no-confidence move fell short by 36 votes. Fahim thought of resigning ARD
and PPP leadership after the defeat of no-confidence motion, but Benazirs
telephone call forced Fahim to change his mind. On 5 th September, MMA
threatened its MPs would resign from assemblies if the government passed
the Protection of Women Bill.
Nadeem Iqbal observed that the Opposition failed to convince the
masses of the logic behind this move, who remained convinced that this was
an exercise to topple the government. On its part, the government played its
cards well. Hitting the nail bang on the head, it brought the Protection of
Women Bill Criminal Law (Amendment) in the parliament that exposed the
ideological divide among the combined Opposition.
831

Qazi annoyed the PPPP by saying that Benazir is more la-deen

(irreligious) than Musharraf This intra-Opposition controversy has
over-shadowed their one-point agenda to oust the incumbent government. In
fact the government has started playing on the Oppositions pitch
particularly of MMA when it accused the religious alliance of committing
blasphemy by tearing down the Women Protection Bill that contained sacred
references.
MMA members reacted by saying that it was the government
that did so because they thought the bill, to be considered by a special select
committee representing all parliamentary groups, was contrary to Islamic
injunctions as it interfered with Hudood, or limits set by the Holy Quraan,
for punishment of related offences.
In an interesting development, an individual Muhammad Ishfaq
Chaudhry, president of the Pakistan Peoples Movement, has approached
Islamabad Police seeking registration of a case against Leader of
Opposition Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Liaqat Baloch
and Hafiz Hussain Ahmed. The applicant said the parliamentarians act was
un-Islamic and a case be registered against them under the Blasphemy Act.
In this backdrop, it seems least likely that the Opposition would
reap the benefits it sought out of the no confidence motion like turning it
into an anti-Musharraf campaign or highlighting that the prime minister is
toothless etc.
The News wrote, while the government of course emerged victorious
in numerical terms, would it be fair to agree with the oppositions
assessment that at least a moral victory had been achieved? The fact is
that this is the only time in the countrys history (though for long periods
there was no parliament) that a no-confidence motion has been voted on
against a prime minister.
It has been said with much regret that in most, if not all, such
instances, in which allegations of such a serious nature were leveled (in
many cases backed by circumstantial evidence or with official agencies even
ready and willing to investigate) This was not done and only denials were
issued. To that extent, one would agree with the oppositions contention
that it did achieve in bringing attention to the governments failures and
shortcomings.
Impressed by the rulers keenness in pursuit of soft image, some
Karachites erected Independence Day billboards with life-sized picture of
Indian film star Amitabh, instead of usual practice displaying pictures of
832

heroes of Pakistan Movement. After media reports, the authorities ordered

removal of the controversial billboard.
Hafiz Saeed fought his case in court. On 16 th August, his house-arrest
was challenged in Lahore High Court. On 28 th August, the court ordered his
release. Hafiz Saeed was released and re-arrested immediately.
Controversy over Women Protection Bill continued. On 18 th August,
Opposition thwarted governments bid to table the bill for amendments in
the Hudood law. Three days later, government introduced the piece of
legislation in National Assembly; Opposition, less PPP, protested by tearing
apart the copies of the bill.
On 21st August, two motions were moved in NA against MMA for
desecration. The bill is against spirit of Islam, Qazi insisted. On 24 th August,
MQM filed a reference against MMA. On 6th September, MMA and the
government formed eight-member committee to reconsider the controversial
clauses of the bill.
While MMA and PML-N strongly opposed the proposed amendments
in Hudood laws, the New York-based Human Rights Group found the draft
changes as grossly inadequate and falling far short of the reform required to
end legalized discrimination and deter violence against women.
On fourth day of the Oval Test, Australian umpire, Darrell Hair, ruled
entire lot of Pakistani team as cheats. When Inzamam and his team
protested, the umpire gifted the match to the Whites. Pakistani MPs batted
for Inzamam and Australian PM fended for Darrell and Aussie greats lined
up behind the culprit. On 25th August, Hair spelled out his terms for a deal:
Give me $ 500,000 and Ill quit.
Other events in this context were sending of flowers by Prime
Minister to A Q Khan while Opposition expressed concern over Dr Qadeers
deteriorating health. Imrans hospital offered treatment. Earlier, Supreme
Court issued detailed verdict on Pakistan Steel Mills. The government had
paid Rupees 9 million to the lawyers for the lost cause. Last but not the least,
after remaining dormant for few years, Defence Day was celebrated.
Meanwhile, crackdown against militancy continued:
On 18th August, police arrested six activists of Jaish-e-Muhammad in
connection with suicide bombing on the US Consulate. Bomber was
identified as Raja Muhammad Tahir.

833

 Next day, a leader of LJ was arrested from Khairpur Tamiwali. A Shia

leader was killed near D I Khan on 23rd August and another person
was wounded in separate incident.
On 30th August, AI reported new patterns of disappearances and
authorities removing suspects secretly without explanation.
Two days later, a court in Multan awarded death sentence on the count
of 40-time and 310-year imprisonment to the accused in a car bomb
attack.
Independence Day was celebrated with marked change. Indian
film celebrity took the place of the heroes of Pakistan Movement. It should
not have surprised the observant Pakistanis. Well before the Day, the sayings
of the Quaid in text books were replaced with sayings of Pervaiz Elahi or
leader of the Gujrat Mafia as Imran would like to call him. Pakistan was
heading fast to exchange its Quaid for Amitabh.
Arif Jamal reported some facts about Hafiz Saeed. He was first
arrested in 2001 when India deployed its army on the international
borders with Pakistan in the wake of a terrorist attack on the Indian
Parliament building in New Delhi. Instead of taking to streets, the Jamatud
Dawah chose the legal course and won his freedom after a long legal battle.
This is the fifth time that the government has put Hafiz Saeed
under arrest since 9/11 He was taken into custody on August 10, 2006,
released on August 28 on orders of the High Court and put under house
arrest three hours later.
It is widely believed that the government took these steps under
intense Western pressure. The other reason was to placate a belligerent
India India blamed Laskar-i-Taiba (of which Jamatud Dawah is an
offshoot) for the serious bomb blasts in Mumbai in July that killed nearly
200 people.
As regards the controversial bill, the government will never succeed
in acquiring the soft image through such bills as long as countrys official
name remains Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The government should
address the root-cause of the problem. It should find a new name of the
country in accordance with the demands on the 21st century; the names like
Secular Republic of Pakistan (or Pakis) or Enlightened Moderate Republic
of Pakistan could be considered. Similarly, the name of the capital also
needs change as it sounds too offensive.

834

The episode of Oval test, too, should not have surprised many. It
had to happen one day because of the ethnic and religious prejudices of the
Whites. The record of Hair is hair-raising. He emulates Bush the bully on
cricket grounds. Pakistan has been tolerating all the nonsense from both,
Bush and Hair, in pursuit of soft image. If Bush can declare the entire
Ummah as Islamic fascists, his humble follower can accuse a team of an
Islamic country as cheats.
It is worth the note that one of the Christian White saint, the manager
of English cricket team knew a day before the incident that Pakis will
indulge in ball tampering. Fletcher, after the divine revelation, called on the
match referee on third day of the match and informed him accordingly.
Shireen M Mazari was quite bitter about the incident and rightly so.
Pakistan has clearly been sending out wrong signals post-9/11 which has
allowed all and sundry to attack and vilify Pakistan at will. Even in the field
of cricket, we have allowed our players to take abuse at the hands of racist
umpires and an ICC which still seeks to exude an imperialist legacy long
after the demise of British imperialism. Why else would Pakistans
cricketing officials most holding office without any merit credentials
have allowed our hard working and dedicated suffer insults, racist slurs and
simply bad umpiring over and over again.
To no ones surprise, Darrell Hair was central to letting the English
teams unfair tactics go by, but the fault also lay with chairman of the
Pakistan cricket Board and Coach Bob Woolmer who took no issue of this
abuse of Pakistani cricketers because they wanted to maintain a good
spirit in the series.
Why did Pakistan not lodge a protest against the appointment of Hair
as a test umpire for the present series is a question whose answer lies in the
colonial subservience of the PCB chief to all things British I am
surprised our players kept their cool for as long as they have done and
Inzimams only fault at the Oval was to have reacted late in protesting and
then walking back on to the field.
Enough is enough. How much abuse are we Pakistanis to take? We
have been called terrorist, the slur Pakis is used with gay abandon in
England, and in cricket we have had to put up with cheating and wrong
decisions at the hands of badly-selected umpires.
The colonial hangover of the PCB chief was also reflected in
Pakistan being the only country that opposed dilution of the umpires
authority by offering players recourse to replays and so on Given Hairs
835

record, the ICC clearly showed mala fide intent towards Pakistan by
appointing him as the umpire for the test series. Yet there was no protest
from Pakistan.
Shafqat Mahmood said, the fact is that we have been grievously hurt.
To give credit where it is due, many of the English commentators and a
majority of the writers in the print media have laid the blame squarely on
Darrell Hair, but when the dust settles and that punishment cycle has been
gone through, we will still be stuck with dirty paws of this monster of
cheating People will only remember that Pakistan was accused of ball
tampering and brought the game into disrepute.
Jawwad Ahmad wrote, after the ball tampering row at Oval,
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, cricketers and the media supported
Umpire Darrell Hair. Even controversial Shane Warne tried to back Hair.
The Australian media presented him as a brave man who could withstand
any situation for the sake of rules. This brave man of Australian media
then offered to retire if the ICC gave him half-a-million dollars. If he
was so brave, then why reluctance to face an inquiry? The only reason that
Mr Hair could have offered to resign was because he knew that the PCB
would take him to court and ask him to provide evidence of ball-tampering. I
think the PCB should file a case of defamation because the ICC is not
neutral, especially Malcolm Speed who is still trying to protect Darrell Hair.
The News wrote, the Supreme Courts detailed judgment following
its verdict annulling the privatization of Pakistan Steel Mills is a stinging
indictment of the way the government dealt with the sale. It also
reinforces the perception held by many that the governments privatization
programme may well be a vehicle to gift profitable state-owned enterprises
to certain favoured parties. The court said that the disinvestment process was
done in indecent haste and that surprisingly one of the successful bidders
had several suits pending against it and whose whole corporate behaviour
had come under scrutiny in a report of a task-force instituted to examine the
causes of stock market crashes in Pakistan.
According to the detailed judgment, one of the successful bidders
had three suits filed in the high court, one FIR filed in a police station in
Karachi and an arbitration proceeding notified (but still pending) by the
Punjab chief minister. In effect, there were several complaints against this
one entity and without going into the merits of the FIR or the legal suits,
their existence alone should have based on the PCs own rules for
prequalification disqualified the potential bidder.

836

As for the anti-monopoly argument, in this particular instance the

successful consortium of buyers included one company which only recently
had been given permission to build a steel plant. Surely, the government
should have noticed that handing the PSM to a company which is already
committed to building a new steel plant in Pakistan would have created a
major monopoly in this key sector.
The whole process was rushed so much that the cabinet committee on
privatization could not possibly have had enough time to independently
study a report presented by the financial adviser to the sale, who was
engaged to assist in the valuation of the assets One can wonder whether
other privatizations were done more transparently and less-hurriedly
than this one and whether the government and the Privatization Commission
will learn any lessons from this.
After remaining dormant for about four years, the government
realized that it was not right to forget, for the sake of peace process and
soft image, all those who sacrificed their lives for the country. The Day,
however, was celebrated by remembering mix of September War events and
Americas on going war on terror.
Perceptions about Pakistan, however, remained unchanged. M B
Naqvi scribbled his pet prescription for the cure of the ailment. Pakistans
ruling establishment realizes that Pakistans stature has diminished. The
reasons for this are varied: it has many militant Islamic groups and
whenever a terrorist is arrested anywhere a connection with Pakistan is
mentioned. The country is also perceived as a volatile, unstable and
undesirable state with nuclear weapons. Major world powers are doubly
worried about the future of our nuclear weapons.
This central fact should guide Pakistans policy makers. No more
wars with India should be the aim. Islamabad has to follow a policy of
peace, whether or not India responds likewise If this is so, a whole new
policy orientation towards India is needed. This new India policy would be
hindered by the presence of nukes, being a cold war baggage.
The best course will be to ask Muhammad Al Baradei, the IAEA
chief, to come and take charge of these weapons. Let his scientists
dismantle them in a scientific manner into elements that can be used or
disposed off safely. He seemed to be working on urgent fee. He wanted the
entire process of major policy reorientation to be completed before the end
of ElBaradeis tenure; whereas India was not prepared no show even
flexibility on ordinary issues like Sir Creek.
837

CONCLUSION
The peace accord with tribes of North Waziristan revealed one thing
for certain; the government seemed tired of the policy of unilateralism in
Americas war on terror. Despite the correct realization and noble intention,
the accord will be seen with suspicion by those across the Durand Line and
beyond.
Saleh Zaafir had termed the foiling of UK terror plot as a feather in
the cap. A variety of feathers could be gathered locally, by tracing out the
culprits of Nishtar Park bombing and other such incidents. But, it seemed
that rulers were fond of imported feathers only.
India has unilaterally frozen the peace process; Pakistan will require
lot of effort to defreeze it. Internally, the government has tried hard to
acquire soft image, but perceptions of friends and foes outside Pakistan have
not changed nor are likely to change in foreseeable future
7th September 2006

ALL OVER ALL OUT

Military actions in the Global War on terror are now restricted to the
region between Palestine and Pakistan. Elsewhere, the resolve of proxy
crusaders has dissipated considerably. Zawahiri and Shehzad Tanweer,
however, issued messages of on the eve of 7/7 anniversary, threatening more
London-like attacks.
The die-hard Crusaders kept pointing towards other possible targets
for the holy war. They stressed upon the US to press for deployment of
strong peacekeeping force in Darfur. At the same time, they raised alarm
about resurgence of Islamists in Somalia.
Meanwhile, the West raised other issues to demonize Islam and its
followers. The foiled UK terror plot came handy in this regard.
Nevertheless, the US was continuously criticized on overall conduct the war.
But, Muslim rulers remained dumb as hither-to-fore.

AFRO-ASIA

838

The intensity of war against terror in South East Asia decreased

considerably. In Philippines, Army claimed killing several fighters in a
clash with Abu Sayyaf men in Jolo on 2nd August. About three weeks later,
troops killed six Muslim fighters in the southern island. On 5 th September,
Manila resumed talks with Muslim separatists.
Muslim police officer was shot dead in southern Thailand on 10th
July. A week later, the government extended emergency rule in Muslim
south. Six people were killed in the south on 20 th July. At least 22 bombs
exploded almost simultaneously in southern Thailand on 31 st August, killing
2 persons and wounding 28 others.
In Indonesia, an Islamic militant convicted in Bali bombing was freed
on 17 August. No other incident of terror was reported during the period.
However, peace deal to end the persistent insurgency in Aceh kept drawing
the attention and comments.
th

Abdulla Al Madani wrote, many individuals and groups have argued

that the autonomy issue that included in Aceh peace deal may encourage
other Indonesian provinces to seek the same, especially with the presence
of separatist movements in Papua and ethnic conflict in Sulawesi and
Ambon. A more worrying issue, however, has been the consequences of the
implementation of Sharia law in Aceh, a freedom granted as part of the
autonomy package. Strangely, perhaps not so strangely, a Muslim is worried
about implementation of Sharia law.
In the post-former dictator Suharto democratic era, there have been
growing campaigns led by several radical Islamic movements to
implement Sharia, a comprehensive set of laws that govern everything
from banking to theft and adultery.
According to recent reports some members belonging to these
movements such as the Islamic Defenders Front and the Indonesian
Mujahideen Council, have already moved to Aceh to help the latters
autonomous administration implement Shria law and probably to use the
province as a base for their dream of making Indonesia an Islamic state. The
danger here stems from the fact that Aceh is a resource-rich province,
and consequently can finance such a dream, especially that the autonomy
package gives it a greater share of revenue from its natural gas reserves,
estimated at 40 billion cubic meters.
It must be remembered that Aceh was first granted permission to
implement partial Shria law and have its own Sharia-based educational
system in 2001. At the time, this was an attempt by then president
839

Abdurrahman Wahid to dampen separatist sentiment in the province and

persuade GAM to end its guerrilla war, in which more than 12,000 people
have been killed.
In Bangladesh, three persons were wounded in a blast in a bazaar on
2 August. Next day, security forces arrested 25 Islamists from a hideout in
forest north of the capital. Ten days later, seven more militants were
detained. Police killed 11 militants in shootout in Pabna district on 17 th
August. A militant was awarded 64-year jail term on 29th August.
nd

In Australia, a plane was grounded after bomb hoax on 7 th July.

About a month-and-half later, Australian court quashed conviction of a
Muslim convert found guilty of receiving money and an air ticket from alQaeda. Meanwhile, Australian mission in East Timor was accomplished with
naming of Ramos-Horta as Prime Minister after Mari Alkatiri had resigned.
Russia rejected Bush advice on democracy on the eve of G-8 summit.
Five weeks later, at least ten people were killed and 31 wounded in a bomb
blast in a market in Moscow. Masha Lipman indulged in demonizing Russia
by quoting the statement of human rights groups.
Leading Russian and foreign human rights organizations issued a
statement in which they expressed deep concern about the situation with
human rights in Russia and cited a systematic crisis in the field of human
rights and democratic institution. Concealment of these issues, the
statement says, will promote further degradation of the situation with
human rights and the erosion of democracy in Russia.
Information from Central Asia came in trickle. In Chechnya, the
freedom fighters vowed to continue Jihad after the death of Ismail Basayev.
On 15th July, Chechens offered peace after Russia announced amnesty. Two
days later, two policemen were killed in attack in Groznyy.
Uzbekistan told the US-based HRW that it must provide documented
evidence to support accusations made about the situation in the country and
warned it was breaking the law. Two months later, Graig Murray, who has
been British ambassador to Uzbekistan when the country was a US ally in
war on terror, prepared a case against Karimov, but also blamed the US for
supporting the dictator in earlier period of the war on terror.
Trying to tell the truth about the country cost me my job. Continuing
to tell the truth about it dragged me into the Kafkaesque world of official
censorship and gave me a taste of the kind of character assassination of
which I once thought only a government like Uzbekistans was capable

840

President Islam Karimov had reigned here as the Soviet satrap since 1989;
after independence two years later, he had managed to make poverty and
repression even worse than in Soviet times.
In Karimovs Uzbekistan, no dissent is allowed. Media are statecontrolled, and opposition parties are banned from elections. Millions of
people, including children, toil on vast state-owned cotton farms, receiving
some $2 a month for working 70-hour weeks
More than 10,000 dissents are held in Soviet-style gulags. Many
are pro-democracy advocates, but anyone showing religious enthusiasm is
also swept up. Most are Muslims, but Baptists and Jehovahs Witnesses are
routinely persecuted, too.
I saw this happening in a country regarded as a strategic friend
by the United Sates, which was looking for well-placed allies after Sept 11,
2001, attacks. Karimov had delivered for President Bush, allowing the
United States to take over a major former Soviet airbase at Kashi-Khanabad
to help wage war in neighbouring Afghanistan; the several thousand US
forces stationed there were the first Americans permitted to serve in former
Soviet territory. As a reward, Karimov had been Bushs guest for tea in the
White House in March 2002.
It was clear by the time I arrived in Tashkent a few months later that
the United States was handsomely rewarding Karimovs cooperation
In other words, when the prisoner was boiled to death that summer, US
taxpayers had helped heat the water.
I learned that there was pattern to the confessions people were
signing a pattern reminiscent of the testimony I had heard from an old
Muslim man at the trial I attended when I first arrived in the country. He had
signed a statement, the man said, asserting that two of the defendants his
nephews were members of al-Qaeda and had met Osama bin Laden. Then,
suddenly, he drew himself up: It is not true, he said.
At the same time that I was receiving word from Uzbek citizens
about the gruesome affronts to their humanity, I was also getting CIA
intelligence on Uzbekistan, under the US-UK intelligence-sharing
agreement. This information fed to the CIA by Karimovs security services
revealed the same pattern of information as those forced confessions.
The CIA was apparently well aware that it was getting material
drawn from torture. At my request, my deputy confirmed this with the US
Embassy. She reported back to me that she had been told that the United

841

States did not see a problem in the context of the war on terror. (I
immediately reported this back to Britain in a top-secret telegram.) And both
the CIA and the British intelligence service MI6 were accepting and using
this intelligence in their assessments, despite its highly questionable
validity.
North Korea carried out seven missile tests on 4th July. Bush urged
UNSC to condemn North Korea and refused any concessions for talks.
Thirteen states, including UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Italy, Spain
and Singapore teamed up to check nuclear programmes of Iran and North
Korea.
On 11th July, China rejected UN resolution on North Korea. Hu
expressed concern over the situation and asked Seoul to help against
calamity. Russia and China offered compromise draft. Four days later,
UNSC imposed sanctions and North Korea rejected.
Putin remained optimistic about North Korea tensions. North Korea
cannot be forced to change nuclear plan, said China. The US decided to
deploy interceptor missiles in Japan. No talks until US lifts sanctions,
announced North Korea.
The Guardian was of the view that the right response must be
reinvigoration of diplomacy this is time for cool heads and calm
analysis, keeping things in perspective and avoiding inflammatory axis of
evil rhetoric: for maturity, in short, in the face of a childish provocation.
The Washington Post wrote, the good news is that most of the
world appears outraged rather than impressed by the latest North Korean
stunt. The UN Security Council met yesterday to consider a tough
condemnatory resolution, including sanctions proposed by Japan, which has
already announced its own punitive measures.
Until now China and South Korea have refused to pressure Mr
Kim. That cynical policy serves South Korean and Chinese economic
interests as well as the two governments desire for stability in the North
even if stability means propping up one of the most murderous and immoral
regimes in modern history.
If China and South Korea are serious about stopping North Koreas
development of weapons of mass destruction, now is the time to demonstrate
it. If they are unwilling to act, the Bush Administration should consider
other means of preventing further North Korean missile launches.

842

Daniel Schott opined, Putin calls North Koreas firing of test missiles
disappointing, but says its within North Koreas legal right. He also calls
Irans response to a Western carrot-and-stick proposal a little on the low
side. But in neither case has the Kremlin indicated it would support an
American proposal of sanctions. He meant that Putin was not coming on
to the US line.
Missy Comley Beattie opined, even if we change the course of our
actions to reverse the policies of the neocons, it will take years for other
countries to trust us. In fact, it will take years for us to trust our own
government. Michael Gerson must have been engaging in some serious
apple biting from the tree of forbidden fruit when he was chosen to write
moving sentences for the president. He was, after all, eventually, cast from
the Rose Garden.
Why wouldnt Kim Jong-Il immediately shift his nuclear program
into high gear after hearing Bush include North Korea among the evil
threesome? The words were a direct threat, a challenge to North Koreas
leader. Breaking news? Yes, but no surprise. Not for those of us who have
watched the unfolding of this very predictable flurry of activity from Kim
Jong-Il, one among an axis of nuts.
Condoleezza Rice scared us with images of mushroom clouds over
our cities. Many were certain Saddam would be the button pusher. Turns out
there were no WMD in Iraq. Perhaps, the most harmful weapons are
Bushs language, decisions, and an invasion that stimulated the other nuts
in the world to stoke their own rhetoric and arms programs.
John Keffer said, in 2000, the US government put together a proposal
to end North Koreas missile program. Part of the proposal included the offer
to launch satellites for North Korea. The offer was still on the table when
the Bush Administration took office. There was no follow-up.
Kamran Shafi wrote, there is no absolute and bullying and firm
and self-assured statement of intent to do damage to North Korea for that
country actually firing seven (not one or two but SEVEN) ballistic missiles
such as there was, for very little reason, against Iran. And why do you think
this is so, gentle reader?
For the simple reason, and I have been making this point for more
than three years now (sorry, Charlie and your aunt), that America will not
move against North Korea because it is so militarily powerful that it can
set Japan and South Korea on fire in ten seconds flat.

843

It will bully Iran because Iran is a weak country that can do nobody
any harm. Simple, straightforward case of the neocons bullying nature,
especially (and I say this advisedly, not carelessly) because Iran fits the bill
of the Islam-bashing that is the flavor of the decade with Dubya and his
crazed and ill-intentioned neocon handlers.
I wonder how many of you saw the man appear alongside Canadas
new reactionary prime minister, the far right Steven Harper on CNN. The
platitudes Dubya used for North Korea were embarrassing: there was not a
squeak out of him on regime change, say, which threat is used routinely
against weak Muslim countries such as Iran and Syria. Disgusting, is it not?
Well, there you go.
Der Spiegel opined, the launch was a protest over US economic
sanctions against North Korea. But Pentagon officials said the brief flight of
the missile made it difficult to assess where it was aimed. The day after
Indias Agni III missile test failed, The Daily Hindu wrote that by test-firing
missiles Pyongyang demanded attention.
Patrick J Buchanan said Asias defence isnt US duty. America
should step back and let the lesson sink in on Asia that we have been
carrying the load for defence of South Korea and containment of the North
for 50 years. And we plan to lay the burden down. Kim and his missiles are
primarily Asias problem, not ours. And if South Koreas president wishes to
play dtente with Kim Jong-Il, let Seoul bear the consequences if he proves
to be a Neville Chamberlain. He was threatening the allies who oppose
military action.
In Saudi Arabia, seven detainees, including a Yemeni, escaped from a
jail in Riyadh on 8th August. No terror-related incident took place during the
period. Robert Lacey gleefully reported that amid the gloomy news
emerging from the Middle East, it is encouraging to report one item of
cultural progress: the convening of Saudi Arabias first-ever film festival.
This in Islams heartland, where cinemas do not officially exist.
The festival carries the imprimatur of the Saudi Ministry of Culture
and Information and of Prince Abdul Majid bin Abdul Aziz, the half-brother
of the king and governor of Mecca. These are strong signs of official
approval, and bowing to religious sensitivities, the organizers have been
careful to announce the occasion locally as visual shows rather than a
film festival.
The one area of controversy concerns the festivals admission policy.
All sessions are designated as family occasions, which means that single
844

men or men in groups are banned, but single women or groups of women
are permitted without male chaperons.
Jordan has been a central hub for transfer of suspected terrorists
held/wanted by the US, announced Amnesty International on 24th July.
However, during the period, only one incidence of violence took place in
which one British tourist was killed and another wounded by gunman.
In Turkey, ten Brits were among 27 injured in blasts in a
Mediterranean seaside resort and Istanbul on 28th August. Two days later, a
woman was injured in a blast in the south. Turkey lies in the vicinity of main
battleground and most of its problems are linked to war in Iraq. In mid-July,
it signaled stepped-up fight against Kurdish rebels. Earlier, the US had
stopped Turkey to act against Kurds. Later, Turkey urged NATO action
against rebels.
Tulin Daioglu talked about Turkeys dilemma. Last week, 15
members of the Turkish security force died in PKK attacks, bringing the
total number of Turks killed or wounded by the PKK to nearly 2,000 since
the group unilaterally ended its cease-fire in 2003. The ongoing violence
has prompted Turks to favour a military operation led by Turkey to
target PKK safe havens in northern Iraq. The question is whether or not it
makes sense to carry out such an operation.
The PKKs goal is to create a Kurdistan out of land taken from
Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Iraqi Kurdistan is just a small part of what
they claim as their homeland. Iraqi Kurdish leadership claims that they
have no control over PKK areas just like the Lebanese governments lack
of control over Hezbollah.
What is more puzzling is the US insistence that Turkey should deal
the Iraqi-Kurdistan regional government on the PKK matter. In the US
federal system, if a foreign country claims to be victim of a terrorist attack
originating in any part of the United States, Washington takes the
responsibility. Therefore, the US insistence on doing things the other way
around in Turkey is equated as supporting an independent Kurdistan.
Turkey is the only country in the region that imported terrorism from
Iraq. And its patience is time well spent in clarifying the parts of the big
picture going forward. Mr Bush has said that every country has the right to
defend itself. And it is never late to start doing so.
Sporadic fighting in Sudan continued. Eight Sudanese aid workers
were killed by mid July. On 20th July three sanitation workers were beaten to

845

death by rebels. SLA faction claimed shooting down a government aircraft

on 7th August.
During fourth week of July, Darfur rebel-leader, Minni Minnawi
arrived in Washington for discussion with Bush. A month later, Sudan
rejected UN peacekeepers and snubbed US bid to secure UN troops for
Darfur. In first week of September, Sudan asked African monitors to leave
Darfur.
Western media kept pressing for deployment of UN peacekeepers in
Darfur region. The Washington Post wrote, its good that, even as the
worlds attention has shifted to Lebanon, President Bush met Thursday
with Salva Kiir Kayadit, the leaders of the southern Sudanese rebel group
that fought the northern government for 21 years until a peace deal last year.
But nothing about Mr Kiirs message is encouraging.
The southerners have important titles but little real power, and the
hope that their political inclusion would soften the regimes draconian
repression of opponents in Darfur and elsewhere has proved empty. The
peace deal required the reform of the governments security apparatus. But
Human Rights Watch reports that multiple shadowy agencies continue
to torture and commit other abuses.
A key part of the peace deal concerned the sharing of revenue
from Sudans oil fields. A border commission created to demarcate the oilrich Abyei region ruled that many of its oil fields belonged to the south so
the northerners broke with the terms of the deal and disregarded the
commissions findings Mr Kiir has complained that southerners have not
been shown production or revenue figures, so they cant determine whether
theyve received their fair share or not.
In another editorial, the Washington Post added, last week Britain
and the United States circulated a UN Security Council resolution that
would get about 20,000 peacekeeping troops and police officers into Darfur;
if such a force were actually deployed, it would represent the greatest
step forward for Darfur since the killing started.
The Arabs have long opposed a UN deployment in Darfur, apparently
because they believe in the sovereign right of governments to slaughter
civilians. To disguise the brutality of this position, the Arabs have in the
past professed a preference for the existing African Union peacekeeping
force in Darfur, even offering to provide resources to it. But that was just
talk. Virtually all the funding for the African Union force has come from
Europe and the United States.
846

Fortunately, the Arabs cynical stance need not prevent the

resolution from being adopted. But to deploy the proposed force, the
United Nations will need cooperation from Sudans government; it cannot
fight its way into Darfur. Mr Bashirretains an unprincipled determination
to keep the United Nations out of Darfur, even though the need for a
peacekeeping force is clearer than ever.
The world needs to be clear what Mr Bashirs position amounts
to. As a result of his governments systematic destruction of African villages
in Darfur, more than 2 million displaced people there depend on
humanitarian relief, but mounting violence that claimed the lives of eight aid
workers last month makes the delivery of relief extremely difficult. In these
circumstances, barring the entry of peacekeepers is to condemn thousands of
displaced civilians to starvation.
Arabs looked at the problem differently. Gulf News wrote, the latest
UN proposal to replace 7,000 African Union troops with a 17,000 strong
UN contingent is not going to work in Sudan. It will complicate the issue
instead of offering a solution. The UN should look at ways to help Sudan
and the African Union to solve the problem. Forcing solutions on the
Sudanese will hurt the UN.
Khaleej Times tended to agree with the Crusaders. The Security
Council voted 12-0 to send 17,500 soldiersbut President Omar alBashirs government spiked the proposal, saying Sudan would not agree
to any resolution that would violate the countrys sovereignty.
The situation is back to square one. The increasing violence has
reduced aid flow to and within Darfur to a trickle. More than three years on
conflict has killed about 200,000 people and rendered 2.5 million homeless
who are living in tents
As things stand, a solution to end the conflict seems evasive. While
the Sudanese governments position is clear, there is opposition to May deal
in Darfur itself because only one of the three rebel factions had agreed to it.
The African Union favours UN takeover of its mission but the main Sudans
National Congress Party opposes it. With so many contradictions, pulls and
pressures, it is not an easy task for the world body to achieve its objective.
However, it is important to note that a final solution should be one that does
not compromise Sudans sovereignty.
In Somalia, at least 15 people were killed in fresh fighting in
Mogadishu on 9th July. Next day, fighting between Somali Islamic and
warlord militias raised the death toll to 39. On 11th July, warlord Abdi
847

Hassan Awale surrendered to Islamists. Death toll in Mogadishu fighting

rose to 100 and more than 200 people were injured.
Somali Islamists vowed holy war on Ethiopian troops. On 20 th July,
troops entered town of Baidoa to help the Somali government. Islamists
rallied the nation for war as Ethiopian troops were said to be moving closer
to Mogadishu to create a buffer between the capitals rulers and the interim
government. Somalia is under attack and Somalis must defend their
country said Sheikh Sharif.
Ethiopian troops moved into second Somali town on 22 nd July. Three
days later, Somali government agreed to peace talks with Islamists. Gunmen
shot dead a minister in Baidoa on 28th July; Islamists in Mogadishu denied
involvement.
On 25th August, Islamists warned of full-scale war with Ethiopia. Ten
people were killed on 4th September in a clash between police and gunmen at
Baidoa Airport. Next day, Islamic movement and the Somali government
signed interim peace accord.
The media focused on equating Somali Islamists with Taliban. AFP
reported that a cleric in Somalia has issued a verdict of death penalty for
those who shirk daily prayers; music at weddings was banned; Islamists
opened Sharia court; and Islamists banned immoral and offensive films.
Arrival of a mystery plane in Mogadishu was reported, but despite its
mysterious nature the agency was sure that the plane brought weapons for
Islamic militias.
Islamists slammed Bush for bankrolling defeated secular warlords.
Hassan Dahir said, there is no Muslim nation that is safe from his (Bushs)
oppression. He should stop his wrong leadership. He used the warlords to
kill people. If its possible for him to be charged, he deserves to be brought
to justice. UNSC move to lift 14-year-old arms embargo on Somalia was
also condemned.
The Economist observed that the government a coalition of
warlords and businessmen recognized by the United Nations but only by
a minority of Somalis is cowering in the town of Baidoa, under a
surreptitious guard of Ethiopian troops.
If the government and CIC could negotiate a power-sharing deal,
Somalia might end up with a government that actually controls its terrain. If
the two sides fought, the consequences could be dreadful. Ethiopia would

848

be likely to send more troops to the government, rallying many nationalists

to the CIC and boosting hardliners among the Islamists
With the European Union, America should urge Somalias factions
to negotiate. They should also insist the Ethiopia, a hated neighbour,
withdraw its troops. And they should help uphold a UN arms embargo on the
country. A governed Somalia would be easiest to police which is why
America should quit meddling on the cheap, and pursue serious diplomacy.
Arms embargo was lifted a few days later.
Gamal Nkrumah wrote, most of Somalias neighbours in particular
Ethiopia and Kenya, two countries with large ethnic Somali minorities are
reluctant to deal with the Islamic Courts Ethiopia, in particular, has a
long-standing fear of militant Islamists and is concerned about the
imposition of a Taliban-like state in neighbouring Somalia.
Rob Crilly while drawing attention towards Islamic Somalia
appreciated the role of Christian Ethiopia in stalling that threat. Ethiopia
has long promised to protect the government of its close ally, President
Abdullah Yusuf, and eyewitnesses reported several hundred Ethiopian troops
crossing into Somalia to be deployed in and around Baidoa in response to
the Islamists advance.
Ethiopia continues to deny that its troops are in Somalia, but their
presence was enough for Islamist leaders some of whom fought Ethiopian
troops in the Somali region of Punt land during the 1990s to announce this
weekend that they wanted no further part in the Khartoum talks.
At the same time the transitional government did not about turn.
After boycotting the talks for more than a week, a Somali government
source, who asked not to be named, says a delegation will be ready to travel
to Khartoum next week.
However, the presence of Ethiopian troops might scuttle the
prospect of talks, says Mohammad Jama, a legislator in the transitional
government. The whole purpose of the dialogue is to stabilize the situation
and prevent the outbreak of violence. I dont think troops and in particular
this set of (Ethiopian) troops can be part of the solution.
The approach of American media towards Somalia was similar to that
towards Sudan. Los Angeles Times saw an Afghanistan emerging in Africa.
While the Middle East burns, Somalia is degenerating into the next 1990s
Afghanistan. It has been observed that when the worlds policemen are
distracted by front-page conflicts; minor tyrants seize the opportunity to go

849

on rampages. Thus, while news cameras dwell on the latest carnage in Israel
and Lebanon, Somalia may be collapsing into a terrorist haven comparable
to Afghanistan under the Taliban.
A known terrorist heads the Islamic militia; its aims are
unknown, but there are ominous indicators of trouble. Newsweek
recently got hold of a militia training video in Mogadishu in which masked
fighters refer to Somalia as the new Afghanistan and urge disaffected
Muslims to gather there. The militias internal newspaper featured a headline
on July 3 saying terrorism was compulsory.
Complicating matters is half-Christian, half-Sunni Eritrea, which
won a tense independence from Ethiopia in 1991 and is believed to be
supplying arms to the Somali Islamists. Then there are the clan loyalties
that make Somalias power struggles at least as much about ethnicity as
anything else. Untangling this web makes making peace between Israel and
Hezbollah seem simple.
The Washington Post cried; Islamists are winning in Somalia. Given
that the transitional government never had sufficient power to operate
outside Baidoa (much less in Mogadishu) and was forced to appeal to
Ethiopia for military assistance against the Islamist forces, it was probably
unrealistic to expect it to be able to hold on power for very long. If the only
opposition to the ICU is a weak transitional government (which now seems
to have all but collapsed), Somalia may as well be written off as an
Islamic-controlled state.
Some observers, including former US senior diplomats, have
suggested that Washington work with the moderate elements within the
ICU to keep the extremist elements out of power. But the rise of radical
cleric, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys (who is on the US terrorist watch list), to
the leadership of the ICU, casts serious doubt on the feasibility of that plan.
Najum Mushtaq was of the view that the failed American attempt to
influence the outcome of the civil war by funding an anti-terrorism alliance
of unpopular warlords has left the Bush administrations ideological Somalia
policy in shreds and further tarnished the US image in Somalia. Washington
insists on pursuing a multilateral process of negotiations and supporting the
anti-Islamist transitional government. Realities in Somalia are changing but
the American policy, defined by its anti-terrorism zeal and its antipathy to
anything Islamic, will ultimately lead to a wider regional conflict, and
perhaps at some later stage, direct confrontation.

850

The Taliban ideology has virtually taken over the tribal areas of
Pakistan and remains as potent within Afghanistan as ever. The Islamic
courts of Somalia and the ideology they espouse are also here to stay. They
have deepened the fissures within the larger Somali society, sharpened
conflicts with regional powers, and stoutly defied Americas war on
terrorism. With them a new era of jihadi Islam and violent confrontation
in the horn of Africa has set in.
The Guardian wrote, so much bad news has emerged from Somalia
since its collapse into anarchy in 1991 that few expect to hear anything
positive. That may change. Events in Somalia could spark a war in the Horn
of Africa. But there are signs of a better outcome as the country regains the
trappings of a functioning society. Which way things go depends on how
Somalias neighbours and the world react.
Reconciliation between the Islamists and the weakened government
could give the country a single source of authority and a prospect of
development. The UN is calling for talks. But two dangers lie ahead. The
first is that the Islamists may fall further into the hands of extremists and
fight on rather than talk. The second is that the interim government could
break apart into violence.
Somalias neighbours, Ethiopia and Eritrea, are stirring the pot.
Ethiopia backs the secular government and is sending in troops and
weapons, enraging the Islamic courts and worrying the UN. Eritrea, which
wants to confront Ethiopia over their ongoing border dispute, is said to have
responded by selling arms to the Islamic Courts. The danger of a
conflagration in Somalia as a proxy for an Ethiopian-Eritrean war is acute.

AMERICA
At domestic front, FBI claimed on 7th July foiling a plot to bomb New
Yorks Holland tunnel. Next day, a US film-maker sued Rumsfeld over his
detention for 55 days in 2005 in Iraq. Three weeks later, Naveed Afzal burst
into a Jewish organization in Seattle, killing one woman and wounding five
others. The organization had held a rally in support of Israeli attack on
Lebanon. A Muslim group resented the reports that US authorities were
profiling Muslim passengers.
Bush Administration faced severe criticism over the conduct of war on
terror from within America and outside. The analysts focused two issues in

851

the context of war; dis-informing American people through media-advice

and illegal practices of torture.
Barry Grey termed the plan to attack New York tunnel as another
dubious terror plot. The mass media, as with every previous and equally
dubious terror plot, swung into action, uncritically reporting the
governments claims as fact, and doing so in a sensationalist manner
designed to generate the maximum alarm and fear.
Just two weeks before. The FBI had announced the arrest of seven
residents of the impoverished Liberty City neighbourhood of Miami in what
was billed as the biggest terror plot since 9/11. Within a day, however, the
smell of provocation had become so great that even the media felt obliged to
drop the story.
It turned out that the seven men had been ensnared in a bogus plot
concocted by an undercover FBI agent provocateur. They had been
targeted for entrapment, and, as in the present tunnel plot, had done
nothing more than talk. That too was an inspirational plot.
The pattern could not be more clear, and it extends all the way back
to 9/11 itself. The government, with the full support of the opposition
Democrats and the complicity of the media, announces at regular intervals
terror plots either nonexistent or contrived by agents of the government
itself in order to keep the American people in a constant state of fear and
confusion, the better to wage war abroad and lay siege to democratic rights
at home.
David Remnick dwelled on governments unfair attitude towards
media outlets which tried to give correct information. In the past six years,
the administration and its surrogates have issued a stream of
disinformation about intelligence and Iraq; paid friendly columnists like
Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher tens of thousands of dollars to
parrot the White House line; accredited to the White House press house of
phony journalist and ex-prostitute (Jeff Bulldog Gannon, a.k.a. James Dale
Guckert) as a reliable pitcher of softball questions; tightened Freedom of
Information Act restrictions; and pioneered a genre of fake news via
packaged video reports.
The president has held fewer solo news conferences than any of his
modern predecessors. The Vice President kept the Times reporter off his
plane because he didnt like the papers coverage. The atmosphere, in
general, has been one of crude manipulation and derision. After Seymour
M Hersh published, in this magazine, his third article on the Abu Ghraib
852

prison scandal in as many weeks, the Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita, overlooking the truth of the reports publicly declared that Hersh merely
threw a lot of crap against the wall and he expects someone to peel off
whats real.
In the recent months, the critique has grown more ominous.
Cheney and other officials have attacked Dana Priests article in the
Washington Post detailing the rendition of prisoners to secret jails in Europe
and James Risen and Eric Lichtblaus articles in the Times describing the
governments attempt to fight terrorism with warrant-less domestic wiretaps.
Aping the spirit, if not the Elan, of his predecessor, Cheney called the
articles disloyal, damaging to national security, and undeserving of the
Pulitzer Prizes they won.
Late last month, the Times published a long report by Lichtblau and
Risen on the CIAs and the Treasury Departments monitoring of an
international banking database in Brussels to track the movement of funds
by al-Qaeda. The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times very
quickly followed with their own articles on the governments monitoring of
al-Qaedas financial transactions, which has been an open secret ever since it
was trumpeted by well, George W Bush, in mid September, 2001.
Infuriated that the editors of the Times had not acceded to blandishments to
kill the story, Bush and Cheney, in a coordinated offensive, described the
Times report as a disgrace and, outrageously, as a boon to further terror
attacks.
Ideological noise machine took it from there. A congressman, Peter
King, and a senator, Jim Bunning, both Republicans, accused the Times of
treason. King, whose contradictory nature once embraced the violent
activities of the IRA, is now the chairman of the House Committee on
Homeland Security. Curiously, it was King who, in September of 2004, cochaired a hearing so that a Treasury official could tell the world how the
departments programs were driving terrorists out of the banking system;
now he speaks of employing the 1917 Espionage Act to investigate and try
journalists. Last Week, the House approved a resolution condemning the
newspapers that published the banking story for placing the lives of
Americans in danger. The resolution passed 227-183, almost completely
along party lines.
The New York Times observed, ever since British intelligence did
such a masterly job in rounding up terrorists intent on blowing up airliners,
the Bush Administration has relentlessly tried to divert attention from

853

the disintegration in Iraq and focus instead on its supposed prowess in

protecting our country against terrorist attacks. That ploy ought not to wash.
While the administration has been pouring its energies and money into Iraq,
it has fallen far behind on steps needed to protect the homeland.
Criticism of Iraq War has been included in relevant articles; herein
views of Mazhar Qayyum Khan are reproduced. The truth, too well known,
is that the Wests urge for continued dominance over the Middle East at
all costs in order to control its huge energy resources comes into conflict
with the local peoples innate feeling of ownership of their resources and
freedom to use them, the feeling that the spread of democracy around the
world has reinforced. Its denial through politically acceptable channels could
turn them into militant opponents (terrorists in the Western terminology) of
the usurpers.
The denial of legitimate rights is the secret behind 9/11 and the
story of US-led wars since: the attack on Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq
and, of course, the Israeli war against Lebanon openly aided and abetted by
the US. The same urge of dominance lies behind the threats to governments
(Iran and Israel), which refuse to kowtow to its wishes. These are open
secrets and have been reiterated repeatedly. Osama bin Laden and other alQaeda top leaders have unambiguously pinpointed them.
With these (Muslim) leaders at their beck and call to serve their
interests, the neoconservatives dominating the Bush Administration seem to
be convinced that brutal means to suppress the militant elements in the
Muslim World would enable them to have their way, at least for a long
while to come, without addressing the causes of their frustration and
discontent But obviously, the policy of repression has failed to put the
militants on the run, notwithstanding the claim President Bush and his
coalition partners have been making that they are winning the war against
terrorism.
Attempts to sugarcoat the bitter pill of aggressive dominance with
words, like spreading freedom and democracy, have failed to deceive Arabs
and Muslims. In fact, Washingtons objectives would not permit democracy
to prevail in the Middle East. Nowhere in the Muslim World where the
rhetoric of spreading democracy applies could have US-supportive
governments elected through popular vote. The public hatred against the US
gets reinforced with daily events hostile to their interest.
Thus Washingtons pronouncements about democracy that sounded
hollow right from the start were regarded as a pretext to promote its strategic
854

interests. They stand utterly exposed now even to the incorrigible optimist,
and of late Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stopped preaching it and
adopted the slogan of a New Middle East.
As leaks in the press suggest, the preparations to lay the ground for
a New Middle East had been in the works for quite some time. And the
Lebanese scenario was conceived as a preliminary step to forays further
failed. The blueprint of military action against the tiny state, billed as model
democracy by the US not long ago, had been prepared by Israeli defence
experts and discussed with the US administration. The intention apparently
was to eliminate Hezbollah, a troublesome guerrilla supporter of Iran and
Syria, both known objects of Washingtons ire for their refusal to toe its line,
before taking them on.
William Fisher on Formica and Jacoby talked about torture of
detainees on the basis of some reports. The Formica report reviewed only
three allegationsthat Iraqi detainees were held for up to seven days at a
time with their eyes taped shut in tiny box-like cells so small that they had to
sit with their knees to their chests while loud music blared, and detainees
were fed only bread and water for up to a week.
One of the detainees said that before he was placed in the box his
clothes were cut off. He said that while held in the box, his captors ducttaped his mouth and nose, making it hard for him to breath. He charged
that water was thrown on him, that he was beaten, kicked and electrocuted
The general dismissed allegations that prisoners were physically abused or
humiliatedrecommended no disciplinary action against any US special
operations personnel.
The Jacoby report, carried out in May 2004, examined the treatment
of detainees at facilities in Afghanistan. He found no systematic or
widespread mistreatment of detainees He too recommended no
punishment to any military personnel.
Amrit Singh, ACLU attorney said: Both the Formica and the Jacoby
report demonstrate that the government is really not taking the
investigation of detainee abuse seriously. She called the reports a
whitewash and questioned why they only focused on a limited number of
incidents
Human Rights Watch said: At long last, it is time for the
administration to ask itself whether the humiliation, brutalization, and
torture of Muslim detainees around the world is making us safer from

855

terrorism or is in fact fanning the flames of resentment and making it easier

for the jihadists to find recruits for their evil cause.
Michael Abramowitz and Robin Wright quoted Richard Haass. I am
hard-pressed to think of any other moment in modern times where there
have been so many challenges facing their country simultaneously. The
danger is that Bush will hand over a White House to a successor that will
face a far messier world, with far fewer resources left to cope with it.
They quoted the editor of Foreign Policy magazine. This is a
distracted government that has to take care of too many things at the same
time and has been consumed by the war on Iraq. And, concluded by quoting
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Every situation makes it more difficult to deal
with another. Its like a juggler. You have to keep all the balls going. Any
one of them that is out of trajectory threatens all the others.

EUROPE
Terror plot to hijack trans-Atlantic airliners was a major event of the
period. On 10th August, British Police claimed foiling a plot to blow up
aircraft mid-flight between Britain and United States. Maximum terror alert
was raised as 24 suspects were arrested. All the arrested people were British
national mostly of Pakistani origin.
Bush said the foiled plot shows his country is still at war with Islamic
fascists. Pakistan submitted a citation for itself by saying that the foiling
was possible due to its intimate cooperation. Some arrests were also made in
Pakistan. Juan Cle commended Pakistans role and claimed Bushies were
deliberately kept in the dark for their loose lips.
Muslims in UK reacted with fear and cynicism. They blamed Blairs
policies for fueling militancy. US Muslims are under cloud, apprehended
Marilyn Elias in USA Today. Chilling reminder of 9/11, said the Washington
Post. A legacy of 9/11, wrote the New York Times.
On 16th August, British police arrested one more suspect bringing the
total to 24. Police remained busy in digging out aid group link with terror
suspects. On 21st August, eight Muslims were charged in a London court
with conspiring to murder and preparing acts of terrorism in connection with
plane plot.

856

Eleven suspects appeared in British court on 22 nd August. Two days

later, British charity regulator froze bank accounts of aid groups for the
alleged link to plane plot. Twelfth suspect charged in plane plot appeared in
court on 25th August.
Three UK Muslims accused of plotting to blow up airliners were
remanded on 30th August. Three days later, British police arrested 16 more
suspects in anti-terrorism raids. On 6 th September, Tom Watson, a junior
minister, and at least five official aides resigned over Blairs leadership row.
Europe, contrary to the general impression, remained more active in
the war targeting the Muslims. Following incidents were reported during the
period:
On 14th July, two Pakistanis in UK were given life sentences for
honour killing.
The Mosque of Paris filed a suit against a weekly on 22 nd July for
publishing three Blasphemous cartoons.
The same day, Muslims in Maine were told that mosques were safe
after state filed a lawsuit against a man who had rolled a frozen pigs
head into a mosque during prayers.
On 26th July, Michael Hand and three others were remanded for racial
killing of a Pakistani taxi driver in UK. Three days later, two
Pakistanis were beaten in racist attack in northern England.
Makeshift Muslim prayer rooms at Paris airports were closed on 3 rd
August alleging that these rooms posed security hazard.
On 18th August, Denmark jailed spokesman of Hizb-ut-Tahrir for
inciting young men to kill members of countrys government and the
Jews; and to fight in Iraq and exterminate your rulers if they stand in
your way.
Next day, German police arrested two men believed to have planted
bombs in trains in July.
On 23rd August, two Muslim students were pulled out off a British
charter flight at gunpoint because other passengers feared they were
terrorists. Next day, four Muslims were charged in Denmark for
planning terror attacks.

857

 One of the two German train bomb suspects was arrested in Lebanon.
On 2nd September, police said cartoons had sparked German train
bomb plot.
Europe, all along, has been fully committed to the cause of ongoing
Crusades, including rendition and torture of prisoners. Graig S Smith wrote,
French intelligence agents had secretly interviewed the six defendants
during their detention by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The
revelation by the daily newspaper LibEration is an embarrassment for the
French government, which has long expressed official disdain for the
American policy of detaining terrorism suspects beyond the reach of law.
According to a copy of a diplomatic cable published Wednesday by
the newspaper, French agents visited the detention centre shortly after it was
created in January 2002 and again in March of that year French
government defended the Guantanamo interrogations, saying they were
normal consular visits during which it is routine to gather any useful
information. How that information was used in this case is a matter for the
judicial authority. French courts have previously declared the Guantanamo
detentions illegal.
The six former detainees, seized by the United States in Afghanistan
and Pakistan as they fled the American invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001,
are accused of associating with terrorist groups. Their lawyers contend that
the accusations are invalid because they are based on the illegal American
detentions.
Washington Times wrote about Italian involvement in this crime but
condemned Italian governments action against officials involved. The
arrest this week of Italian intelligence operator Marco Mancini for allegedly
aiding CIA renditions could signal a tectonic shift in European attitudes
toward their intelligence services and a rollback of cooperation with the
United States. Until now, despite the often fractious public political disputes
between the United States and European governments, European
intelligence has quietly but effectively aided the war of terrorism in
significant ways.
Interest in the Nasr case snowballed over the last year as Italian
leftists decried the countrys role in his alleged torture. Meanwhile, Italians
across the spectrum were enraged over the friendly fire killing by US
forces of a spy, Nicola Calipari, in Iraq last year after he negotiated a
hostage release.

858

The arrest of Mr Mancini tells Italian spies that they can be arrested
for carrying out the policies of Mr Prodis predecessor. As it happens, those
policies were very effective; they have been defended by intelligence
professionals across the spectrum, including those otherwise hostile to the
Bush Administration. This can only hurt.
We cant help but regard Mr Mancini as a hero. For doing his
job, he now sits in a Milan prison awaiting trial. The real target, of course, is
not Mr Mancini but the tough policies he was part of. Very regrettably, Italy
is set to be a very different player now. Islamist activity is now likely to rise
in that country as Mr Prodi dismantles Mr Berlusconis counter-terrorism
apparatus and signals a more lax intelligence environment for terrorists.
The Brits commemorated anniversary of 7/7. Chris Crock wrote,
efforts to reach out to British Muslim youth in the last year have been, at
best, patchily effectiveand one of the great failings of short pieces such as
this is that they tend towards the general rather than the specific; but in
broad terms we can surmise that things are going to worse before they get
better, that the bombers will get through again one day and that they will
have the sympathy, if not the active support, of a large number of British
Muslims when they do; and there will once again be jubilation pouring
from the speakers of mosques in Pakistan.
With this mindset, the Brits have been stressing upon integration of
Muslims in Britain. Arab News wrote, the overwhelming majority of
Muslims in Britain would be happy for their children to serve in the British
armed forces (even though those forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan) or the
police. An overwhelming majority also wants tougher government action
against extremists within the community. Will the poll change attitudes
among the rest of the British populace? Probably not
The sad thing is that far from presenting the poll as good news,
certain elements of the UK press dressed it up in the worst possible
light. The discovery that one in ten of respondents in fact regarded the
killers as martyrs was presented as a split in British Muslim society. That
is deliberate distortion. Ten percent is not just a minority, but a small one.
Ten percent is also too many, but why not concentrate on the 90 percent of
Muslims in Britain who were horrified by the homegrown treachery of the
bombings.
But it is not easy trying to reason with bigots, ultra-nationalists and
militants when some sections of the UK media still peddle the line that there
is something basically suspect about Muslims. The death of a young Muslim
859

soldier goes a sad way to help, but alienation is not going to die until in the
UK media changes its tune.
Nick Cohen criticized UK foreign office wooing Islamists far right
as potential allies to curb militancy and extremism. He termed these
groups closest allies of Arab Muslim Brotherhood, which is an imperialist
movement that wants to establish a Muslim It is sexist because its clerics
justify the beating and circumcision of women. It is homophobic because it
justifies the execution of homosexuals. And it is psychopathic because it
justifies the murder of apostates, any Jew in Israel and any British or
American soldier in Iraq.
Karen Armstrong said, the British Prime Minister has complained
that British Muslims are not doing enough to deal with the extremists. On
the other hand, the extremists believe that mainstream Muslims have failed
to respond to the current crisis and are proud for their deviance. Therefore,
attempting to shift the blame to the already beleaguered Muslim
community could further alienate the disaffected. It will certainly not
prevent another London bombing.
Shahid Malik, Labour MP urged Muslims to join the battle against
extremism. He talked only of Islamic extremism, ignoring neocon
extremism for obvious reasons. In this world of indiscriminate terrorist
bombings, where Muslims are just as likely to be victims of terrorism as
other British and US citizens, we have an equal stake in fighting
extremism. But more importantly, given that these acts are carried out in our
name (Islam), we have a greater responsibility, not merely to condemn but to
confront.
As I said to some 500 Muslims in a hall in Leeds on Saturday, a
whole year on from the heinous acts of 7/7, the Muslim community has not
yet risen to challenge presented by extremism in its ranks. Incidents like
7/7 are easy to quote as these are few in number, but quoting incidents like
Fallujah, which are far too many, complicates the argument.
As a Muslim I believe that there is no better place in the world to live
than Britain. After 7/7 we expected a backlash against Muslims but it
didnt really materialize. Yet had 7/7 taken place in Pakistan and the
perpetrators done it in the name of Christianity, how many Christians, one
year later, would be dead? The learned MP made it convenient to exclude
Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and even Pakistan from Crusaders
backlash.

860

Anas Altikriti wrote, the weekend response of the Foreign Office

minister Kim Howells to a letter from British Muslim leaders that says the
prime ministers policies share the blame for the threat and reality of
violence may have sounded clever to him, but the letter is a reflection of the
anger and frustration spreading in the community.
The News commented on the terror plot. From the arrests of 21
people (all born and raised in Britain) by the UK police Wednesday, it seems
that a major terrorist plot to attack the United States may have been averted.
But America and Britain would be deluding themselves if they think
that international terrorism is over.
The incident has made clear, yet again, that the real cause of global
terrorism is the political and economic injustice of US policies in the
world. Terrorism can only be defeated through the removal of these causes,
not through the supply of more lethal weapons to Israel The question is
for the Americans to ponder deeply and review their policies accordingly, or
be prepared for more fanatics bent upon attacking their country.
Jonathan Cook dwelled on the issue. Britains complacent
satisfaction with its multi-culturalism and tolerance ignores the facts that
Pakistanis and other ethnic minorities mostly live in their own segregated
spaces on the margins of British life. Native Britons like me the white
one generally assume that is out of choice: They stick to their own kind.
Many of us rarely come into contact with a Pakistani unless he is serving us
what we call Indian food or selling us a packet of cigarettes in a corner
shop. So, even though we may have been neighbours of a sort in High
Wycombe, my life and theirs probably had few points of contact.
Living on the margins of any society is an alienating experience
that few who are rooted in the heartland of the consensus can ever hope to
understand. Such alienation can easily deepen into something less passive,
far more destructive, when you find yourself not only marginalized but your
loyalty, rationality, even your sanity, called into question.
As we approach the fifth official anniversary of the war on terror,
the foiled UK terror plot has neatly provided George W Bush, the leader
of the free world, with a chance to remind us of our fight against the
Islamic fascists. But if the war on terror is not really about separating the
good guys from the bad guys, but about deciding what a good guy can be
allowed to say and think.
What if the Islamic fascism President Bush warns us of is not just
the terrorism associated with Osama bin Laden and his elusive al-Qaeda
861

network but a set of views that many Arabs, Muslims and Pakistanis even
the odd humanist consider normal, even enlightened? What if the war on
Islamic fascism is less about fighting terrorism and more about
silencing those who dissent from the Wests endless wars against the
Middle East?
At some point, I suspect, I joined the Islamic fascists without
even my noticing. Were my name different, my skin colour different, my
religion different, I might feel a lot more threatened by that realization? How
would Homeland Security judge me if I stepped off a plane in the US
tomorrow and told officials not only that I am appalled by the humanitarian
crises in Lebanon and Gaza but also that I do not believe the war on terror
should be directed against either the Lebanese or the Palestinians? How
would they respond if, further, I described as nonsense the idea that
Hezbollah or the political leaders of Hamas are terrorists?
What would they make of my belief that Hezbollah does not want to
wipe Israel off the camp? Would they find me convincing if I told them that
Israel, not Hezbollah, is the aggressor in the conflict: that following Israels
supposed withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000, Lebanon experienced
barely a day of peace from the terrifying sonic booms of Israeli war planes
violating the countrys airspace?
Would they understand as I explained that Hezbollah had acted with
restraint for those six years, stockpiling its weapons for the day it knew was
coming when Israel would no longer be satisfied with over flights and its
appetite for conquest and subjugation would return? Would the officials
doubt their own assumptions as I told them that during this war Hezbollahs
rockets have been a response to Israeli provocations, that they are fired in
return for Israels devastating and indiscriminate bombardment of Lebanon?
And what would they say if I claimed that this war is not really about
Lebanon, or even Hezbollah, but part of a wider US and Israeli campaign to
isolate and pre-emptively attack Iran?
Thank God, my skin is fair, my name is unmistakably English, and
I know how to spell the world atheist My friends in Nazareth, and those
Pakistani neighbours I never knew in High Wycombe, are less fortunate.
They must keep their views hidden and swallow their anger as they see
US-made weapons fired by American and Israeli soldiers can do to the
fragile human body, how quickly skin burns in an explosion, how easily a
childs skull crushes under rubble, how fast the body drains of blood from a
severed limb.

862

Sitting in London or New York, the news that Gaza lost 151 souls,
most of them civilians, last month to Israeli bombs and bullets passed by. It
is after all just a number, even if a high one. At best, a number like that from
a place we dont know, suffered by a people whose names we cant
pronounce, makes us pause, even sigh with regret. But it cannot move us to
anger.
And anyway, our news bulletins are too busy to concentrate on
more than one atrocity at a time. This month it is Lebanon. Next month it
will probably be Iran. Then maybe it will be back to Baghdad or the
Palestinians. The horror stories sound so much less significant, the need for
action so less pressing, when each is unrelated to the next. Were we to watch
the Arab channels, where all the blood and suffering blends into a single
terrible Middle Eastern epic, we might start to make connections, and maybe
suspect that none of this happens by accident.
But my Arab friends and High Wycombes Pakistanis have longer
memories. Their attention span lasts longer than a single atrocity. They
understand that those numbers 151 killed in Gaza, and in a single incident
33 blown up in a market in Najaf, Iraq, and at least 28 crushed by rubble
from an Israeli attack on Qana in Lebanon are people, flesh and blood just
like them. They can make out, in all the pain and death currently being
inflicted on Arabs and Muslims, the echoes of events stretching back years
and decades. They see patterns; they make connections, and maybe discern a
plan. Unlike us, they do not sigh, they burn with fury.
This is something President Bush and his obedient serf in Britain,
Tony Blair, need to learn. But of course, they do not want to understand
because they, and their predecessors, are responsible for creating those
patterns and for writing the epic tale in blood. Bush and Blair and their
advisers know that the plan is far more important than the rage, the
red alert levels at airports, or even planes crashing into buildings and
plunging out of the sky.
And to protect that plan to preserve the Middle East as a giant oil
pump, cheaply feeding our industries and our privileged lifestyles those
who care about the suffering, the deaths and the wars must be silenced. Their
voices must not be heard, their loyalty must be questioned, and their reason
must be put in doubt. They must be dismissed as Islamic fascists.
One does not need to be a psychologist to understand that those with
no legitimate way to vent their rage, even to have it recognized as valid,
become consumed by it instead. They seek explanations and purifying
863

ideologies. They need heroes and strategies. And in the end they crave
revenge. If their voice is not heard, they will speak without words.
John Pilger expressed similar views. Police officer, Paul Stephenson,
claims the Heathrow plot was intended to be mass murder on an
unimaginable scale. The most reliable independent survey put civilian
deaths in Iraq, as a result of the invasion by Bush and Blair, above 100,000.
The difference is that mass murder on an unimaginable scale has actually
happened in Iraq.
By any measure of international law, from Nuremberg to the Geneva
Accords, Blair is a major prima facie war criminal. The charges against
him grow. The latest is his collision with the Israeli state in its deliberate,
criminal attacks on civilians. While Lebanese children were being buried
beneath Israeli bombs, he refused to condemn their killers or even to call on
them to desist. That a ceasefire was negotiated owed nothing to him, except
its disgraceful delay.
Not only is it clear that Blair knew about Israels plans but he alluded
approvingly to the ultimate goal: an attack on Iran. Read his neurotic speech
in Los Angeles, in which he described an arc of extremism, stretching from
Hezbollah to Iran. He gave not a hint of the arc of injustice and
lawlessness of Israels occupation of Palestine and its devastation of
Lebanon His references to values are code for a crusade against Islam.
Blairs extremism, like Bushs, is rooted in the righteous violence
of rampant Messianic power. It is completely at odds with modern, multi
cultural, secular Britain. He shames this society. Not so much distrusted
these days as reviled, he endangers and betrays us in his vassals affairs with
the religious fanatic in Washington and the Biblo-ethnic cleansers in Israel.
Unlike him, the Israelis at least are honest.
Many analysts expressed suspicions about the terror plot. Craig
Murray said, unlike the security experts, I have had the highest security
clearance; I have done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis;
and I have been inside the spin machine. And I am very skeptical about the
story that has been spun.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a
plane ticket. Many did not have passports. It could be pretty difficult to
convince a jury that these individuals were about to go through with suicide
bombings, whatever they bragged about on the net.

864

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for
more than a year like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just
Muslims; like me. Nothing from surveillance had indicated the need for
early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed this amazing plot to blow
up multiple planes. Of course, the interrogators of Pakistani dictator have
ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan,
you can get the most extraordinary information from people desperate to
stop or avert torture. What you dont get is the truth.
We also have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing
arrests the weekend before they were made. Why? Both in domestic
troubles, they longed for a chance to change the story. The intelligence
from Pakistan, however, dodgy, gave them a chance. Comparisons with 9/11
were all over front pages.
Plainly, Islamic terrorism does exist. But its growth is encouraged
by our adherence to neocon policy, by our support for appalling regimes
abroad, and by our trampling on the rights of Muslims in the UK. Now
David Cameron has joined Blair and Reid in the rush to benefit politically
from the fear thus engendered. Be wary of politicians who seek to benefit
from terror. Be skeptical. Be very, very skeptical.
Adnan Adil wrote, the announcement about foiling of the attack and
subsequent high-level security measures on airports all over the world
remained the main focus of international media for several days and took
away Israels invasion of Lebanese cities from the TV screens. This
aroused suspicion in a large section of public about the authenticity of the
plot or at least about the timing of its disclosure. The media hype on the plot
was interpreted by many as an attempt to divert attention from Bush-Blair
support for Israeli war against Lebanon and its failure in the face of stiff
resistance from Hezbollah.
Sources have confirmed that the arrests of the suspects were made
on the insistence of the United States and that Pakistan also wanted the
arrests of the accused to be made before one of them could embark on a dry
run. They say the British authorities were of the view that they had been
running the surveillance of all the suspects and wanted little more time to
make the arrests so as to beef up their evidence. Finally, the US-Pakistan
opinion prevailed.
Reports in the US media already confirmed that the Bush
Administration had pressured the British authorities to arrest the suspects of
865

the London terror plot at least a week before they had planned to do so. The
US media had also reported that the American and British authorities had
a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects. This, at
least suggests an attack was not imminent, as the first reports leaked to the
media suggested, because the suspects had not yet purchased any airline
tickets and some did not even have passports.
Norm Dixon observed that doubts multiply over terror plot. The seat
of this conspiracy is not in the working-class neighbourhoods of London,
but in the corridors of power in Downing Street and Washington, and in
the plush suites of the media mughals HQs.
The Western media disseminated a vast array of unsubstantiated
(and often conflicting) accusations by anonymous government, police and
intelligence sources each more hair raising than the last. These were
dutifully repeated and elaborated on by an army of media-appointed security
analysts, experts and commentators, then regurgitated as established
fact by the fashion parade of air-headed TV anchors and hosts.
It is now clear that the claim that an attack was imminent was
completely false New York Times reported on British officials
backtracking on significant aspects of the case and admitting that
investigators have still not determined whether there was a target date for
the attacks or how many planes were to be involved.
He quoted former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray,
the allegation may have been concocted in order to prepare us for arresting
people without any actual bombs I have just checked, and our flat
contains nail polish remover, sports drinks, and a variety of household
cleaning products (a common ingredient of which is hydrogen peroxide)
So the authorities could announce as they have whispered to the media in
this case that potential ingredients of a liquid bomb, and potential timing
devices, have been discovered. It rather lowers the bar, doesnt it?
Senior US and British government officials and the capitalist media
seized on the alleged al-Qaeda terror plot to opportunistically incite
fear and panic among the general public, and to exploit the chaos and
tension to shore up the flagging credibility of the unpopular US-British war
in Iraq and Israels US-British-backed carnage in Lebanon.
Zaki Chehab said that desirous angry young men do not have to go to
Pakistan for training. In five years, however, something very important has
changed the training has changed since Zaid Jarrahs day. Pakistans
president, Pervez Musharraf, has joined George W Bush in his war on
866

terror, and has attempted to flush out the jihadi movements within his
country. This means that the training camps that Jarrah attended, in
Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan can no longer operate openly.
Young men now go to madrassas in Pakistan whose sheikhs are
sympathetic to Osama bin Laden. These places operate ostensibly as
schools, but behind the walls and the gates guarded by men with
Kalashnikovs, classes sit under banyan trees in the sumptuous grounds
learning jihadi philosophy and military techniques.
And if you cant afford to go to Pakistan, or cant get the time off
work, there are options closer home. There are training camps in Wales
and Sussex: some radical groups have been known to rent sports halls in
London suburbs such as Ealing, and even in the city centre, to deliver
training unimagined by their hosts. The guidance is very Islamic: for female
recruits, a female sports trainer is provided. One specific female trainer
travels from Cardiff to a different city every week just to give instruction to
young women interested in jihad.
In other cases, military training is provided by Muslim former
members of the British armed forces who have acquired battlefield
experience at the expense of Her Majestys Government. And the recruits do
not turn up at these sports halls as if for some fundamentalist rally: they
wear tracksuits and the latest trainers, careful not to attract unwanted
attention.
For some, there is no need even to leave the bedroom; there are
chartrooms on the internet that carry all the knowledge required for a
terrorist attack, and the contacts ready to exchange experiences are available
to those in the know. Access to these chartrooms is restricted. The user needs
a password that he can get only after applying to those who run the
websites
The international intelligence services were able to foil the reported
August plot. That may be good news, but we must bear in mind that there
are thousands more young British men in the same path, and they are
learning ever greater discretion.
Zafar H Anjum commented on alleged involvement of Tablighis. The
Jamaat has been in the limelight since 9/11 for all the wrong reasons.
Britains MI5 and Americas FBI have been alleging that it is the
recruiting ground for winnable Islamic terrorists. The organization has
once again come into sharp focus after the recently foiled plot to blow up
transatlantic airliners. UKs security services have found that at least seven
867

of the 23 suspectsmay have participated in Tablighi events. The

organization was also found to be linked with two of the July 7 suicide
bombers.
Though Oliver Roy, the French scholar on Islam, has described
Tablighi Jamaat as completely apolitical and law abiding, is it really an
innocuous religious organization as is claimed by its followers? Or is it a
silent and hidden breeding ground of Islamic terrorism? To assess this, we
need to look at its background and activities.
The thrust of the movement is not clearly on conversions but on
bringing the wayward Muslims back to the fold of practicing Islam. And
now with the Jamaats emphasized association with terrorism, it is facing its
strongest moment of criticism, though it has been on the radar for some
time now.
The western policymakers need to tread a fine line in order to deal
with the Tablighi Jamaat. It may not necessarily attract a blanket ban, but
being the possible ground for the first step on the road to extremism, it
certainly warrants some rethinking and attention on the part of the Muslim
community and the government agencies. A ban might be
counterproductive, but neglecting it would be akin to acting like an
ostrich.

MUSLIMS
It was reported on 11th July that FBI probing website shows
desecration of Quraan. But, this was only one of the many sources ridiculing
Islam and its followers. Syed Moez Shah from Quetta named a few more.
Muslims all over the world are resisting turbulent waves of hostility,
enmity and severe propaganda from all sides, which has intensified
resentment and unrest among them. The western mediaprojects Muslims
as backward, subjugated, demoralized and as terrorists. This is extremely
unjust and harsh.
When the US invaded Iraq and killed thousands of people there, this
was given the name of liberation. When Israel kills helpless Palestinians,
attacks Lebanon and kills innocent people there, this brutality is justified as
a means to protect Israel. However, when Muslims fight for their freedom
in Palestine, Kashmir and Iraq, the western media labels their struggle as
terrorism.

868

The question arises; with this kind of derogatory, insulting and

atrocious attitude called Islmophobia towards Muslims, do the Muslim
rulers still feel that Islamic World should maintain any kind of relationship
with America and other Crusaders? This has not sunk into the minds of
Muslim rulers and that is why they have joined hands with the Crusaders to
defeat Islamic terrorism.
Muslim masses should read the lines written by Ruth Rosen and then
pass judgment on partners/supporters of Americas so-called war on terror.
They should also decide as to how to treat those who have abetted in
commission of war crimes mentioned by Ruth.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq has had the effect of
humiliating, endangering, and expressing Iraqi women in ways that have
not been widely publicized in the mainstream media: As detainees in prisons
run by Americans, they have been sexually abused and raped; as civilians,
they have been kidnapped, raped, and then sometimes sold for prostitution;
and as women and have increasingly disappeared from public life, many
becoming shut-ins in their own home.
Some women were interrogated naked and subjected to derision
and humiliating remarks by soldiers. The British Guardian reported that
one female prisoner managed to smuggle a note out of Abu Ghraib. She
claimed that American guards were raping the few female detainees held in
the prison and that some of them were now pregnant. In desperation, she
urged the Iraqi resistance to bomb the jail in order to spare the women
further shame.
Amal Kadham Swadi told the Guardian that only one woman she met
with was willing to speak about rape. Several American soldiers had
raped her; (Others shied away out of shame). Luke Hardin of the Guardian
reported that at Abu Ghraib journalists have been forbidden from talking to
female detainees, however, have admitted that rapes of women took place in
the cellblock
Guards had videotaped and photographed naked female
detainees These secret photos and videos, most of which still remain
under wraps by the Pentagon, show American soldiers having sex with a
female Iraqi prisoner.
It is never too late to take cognizance of the realities and Dr M S
Jillani mentioned a few more. Like most Muslims around the world, one,
after 9/11, had become convinced of the existence of a well-conceived
international conspiracy to destroy Muslim states, subjugate Muslim
869

populations mentally and economically, poison Muslim youth by injections

of depraved cultural practices, rob Muslim nations of their possessions,
especially oil, and exploit their physical assets to benefit the West.
But the main onslaught against Muslims in this region started in
March after the visit of President Bush to New Delhi. Statements from
Washington after this visit contained opened threats to the Muslims, which
this administration had rarely done before.
After going through the history of Christians animosity against
followers of Islam he commented on the prevalent situation. All the saberrattling by the United States including its immoral support to the Israeli
aggression in Lebanon is aimed at destroying or containing Islam and
the Muslims. What makes the situation grave is that people in the Muslim
countries are far more vulnerable today than they were during the times of
the Crusades The poor nation being aware of the savagery and ferocity of
pre-emptive attacks by the allies do not dare complain to international
bodies which, anyway, have always proved useless if the big powers are a
party.
The world situation as a result is marked by an astonishing degree of
helplessness and dismay. The realization that there is no force in the world to
compel the big powers to change their objectives or mend their ways
deepens the gloom. The message in such a situation is clear. There have
to be new groupings of the oppressed and plundered nations of the world as
the spirit behind the post-World War II organizations has grown weak.
The analyst went to suggest some passive measures. The most
feasible choice for the Muslim nations as such is a movement to give up the
lifestyle requiring foreign goods and foreign guidance, which make users
mentally subservient to foreign companies and institutions for years to
come. One concedes that change in lifestyle is not an easy task especially
when the country has been made to move in the opposite direction.
The objective of boycotting supporters of Israel and other anti-Islam
forces is as strong and relevant to all Muslim countries as it is in the Arab
World: only if public opinion is roused and small groups could spread the
word and persuade people! However, what will have to be kept in mind is
that the entire activity comprises re-thinking our destiny, assessing the
needs of the Ummah and abstaining from jumping into the sinister
world of consumerism rather than antagonizing other countries
unnecessarily.

870

For decades, one has been reciting a couplet by Mir Taqi Mir,
whenever thinking about Ummah: Afsurdagi sokhta janan hai qehr Mir;
Daman ko tuk hila keh dilon ki bujhi hai aag. (Dejection consumes life to
the extreme; let there be fluttering of the skirt of your dress to stoke the dead
fire in the heart). Muslims of the world have to think about their destiny
and act now to rekindle the fire needed for reviving the great Muslim
civilization.
Seba Sarwar wrote, since I landed in the US during the Reagan
regime to todays second Bush regime, anti-foreign (anti-Muslim, antiimmigrant, ant brown) sentiment in the US is at an all time high. She opined
that anyone with a Muslim background is a potential terrorist and a
possible victim of Bushs war against terror.
Mai Yamani asked, what is it that makes young Muslims in the West
susceptible to radicalism? The analyst opined that young Muslims see an
unprecedented level of hostility from the West, with regime after regime
seeming to be either in peril or facing chaos; Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine,
and now Iran. All seem to be under attack as part of the global war on terror.
As a result, the Wests strategic choices appear inherently antiIslamic to countless of its young Muslims. This preoccupation with the
Middle East is at the heart of young Muslims politics in British universities,
mosques, and websites.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal, as usual has sighted a ray of hope. During the era
of imperialism the dominant position of Europe was such that the mere
presence of a European amidst natives was enough to strike terror, as
Marshall Hodgson writes in his The Venture of Islam. This terror has lately
turned around.
There is now ample evidence to suggest that the 300-year-old
darkness of Muslim subjugation is coming to an end; the first rays of
light may not yet be obviously visible, but the terror of night has been
broken and, as with strike of dawn, there are sounds emerging from the
abysmal depths sounds which are harbingers of dawn.
The terror which the Whiteman used to strike in the natives has
turned around; no one is afraid of them anymore. A short stroll on any
street in Gaza, Baghdad or Qandahar is enough to confirm this. Men and
women laden with iron and laced with technological gadgets of all kinds
walk down the road trembling in their uniforms, whereas unarmed, poor, and
disheveled natives have little left to fear.

871

What has really happened on the ground, however, has yet to

happen in the mind of many an educated Muslims. The reconstruction of
Islamic thought is a far easier task, as Iqbal knew well, than the
reconstruction of the broken spirit which has lived in chains for so long that
it has forgotten how to be free. But with the appearance of this new dawn,
even the most sleepy minds are stirring.
That Muslims are waking up is, ironically, due to the cruelty they
have recently received. But this is their habit; they did the same after the
Tartars Whatever the reason of their stirring, the fact is that the terror that
had gripped their hearts for so long is disappearing.
At the dawn of this new era, there is no leader yet; only the
preparation for the appearance of one. The stage is being set, conditions are
ripe, a reversal of roles has taken place in the most deadly encounter ever
experienced by Islamic civilization. For the first time in their long history,
Muslims now have the entire globe as their theatre of action., and that too
not because of their efforts but thanks to the One who has His ways to get
the Pharaoh to lead to his own drowning.
All that can be admitted are the clear-cut admissions of men like
Rumsfeld and women like Rice, who now understand that the quick route to
oil wells and the restructuring of the Middle East they envisioned merely
three years ago is not so quick after all68 percent of men and women
living in the most powerful countrysay they have no faith left in their
leaders.
This is not the moment of rejoicing, for there is too much blood,
too much suffering all around us; corpses have been buried, scars of Abu
Ghraib are still raw, the memory of an Iraqi woman recently raped and then
shot dead with her family in Baghdad by US soldiers is still painfully vivid.
And there is an enormous amount of work to be done, and there are
enormous resources needed for the task ahead.
What is needed now is the coming together of the traditional
middle class traders, teachers, students who have always been Islams
real living embodiment Opening of heart, as it were, will be just the thing
they need to clearly see their own agenda, which has been dictated by others
for the last three hundred years. Once they take this agenda into their own
hands, with a clear perception of its goals, details will automatically be
worked out. And then, what Iqbal really wanted to do with his sublime
poetry, emerging from the deepest springs of poetic imagination fired by the
message of the Quraan will become a reality.
872

Optimism of Dr Muzaffar Iqbal is not unfounded. There are signs of

realization in pro-American rulers in Islamic World as well. Indonesias
Susilo complained that the Western media values Muslim lives less. Prince
Hassan bin Talal also talked of roots of Arab anger.
How much aggression in our region has been justified by the
mantra that western interests are under threat? The battle cries claim
that all is at stake and every strike is a final defence of freedom and stability.
But the premise behind this thinking has become all too obvious. Arabs and
Muslims of whatever race or hue are not to be trusted. They are not to be
dealt with fairly and the liberal values that protect the righteous of Israel or
United States are not for our defence or our protection. It seems that even the
moderates in Arab societies lack the fibre that would grant them equality
under international law. We are all as one, barbarians at the gate to be cowed
and bullied into silent submission.
The roots of that Arab anger and disillusionment which allow
legitimacy be handed over to extremists cannot be ignored. Terrorism is a
tactic borne out of a perversion of lines of representation. If we do not allow
the many to speak, then the violent few will scream to be heard. It may
be difficult for most Israelis to admit, but Shia of Southern Lebanon became
politicized and militarized only in response to repeated Israeli aggression.
Despite the above realizations, the ruling elite have so far failed to
show any kind of solidarity in confronting the aggressor. This can happen
only by ridding of the fear of Americas might and replacing it with fear of
the real Superpower. Muslim and Arab rulers in particular will be once again
tested in this context, may be very soon.
Mohammad Akef Jamal wrote, Iran is an important country and
hence its role is essential for the regions stability, Bashar said, during his
meeting with Egyptians President Hosni Mubarak. This is an important
acknowledgment by a leader of an Arab country that maintains strong ties
with Iran since the fall of Shahs regime.
The role of a country within its regional surrounding is based on
many factors. First come its economic, military, political and diplomatic
capabilities. The second is the ability to enter into alliances with other strong
countries.
The setting up of a new order in the Middle East, where Iran can
play a role in conjunction with the Arabs requires great efforts and
political flexibility. Pending issues between the Iranians and the Arabs must
be solved if the intent is good.
873

If they fail to solve the problems they should seek the help of
international bodies affiliated to the United Nations such as the International
Court of Justice and accept their verdict. Iran, however, has the right to ask
its neighbouring countries not to allow the use of their territories for
anti-Iranian political activities.

CONCLUSION
If America stops meddling in internal affairs of various countries and
regions, the chances of peace and stability would brighten. In many cases the
arms-races will automatically finish. Perhaps, this is not what America
wants.
America has embarked upon the mission of weakening the Muslim
World militarily, politically, economically and culturally. It is heading
toward redrawing the map of Iraq. The mission will not end there as more
countries require this treatment.
The plot to hijack trans-Atlantic flights was projected as yet another
attempt of Islamic terrorism to cause pain to the civilized world. But, in
fact, this incident came handy to divert attention from Judo-Christian
terrorism being perpetrated in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Muslim ruling elite should ponder over the report of Ruth Rosen. One
does not expect them to send an army to rescue those women as Muhammad
bin Qasim was sent to Sindh to help Arab women kidnapped by Hindu ruler,
because this captive did not appeal to any of the rulers in entire Muslim
World. Perhaps, she knew that all of them have been robbed of their courage,
therefore, she requested the terrorist instead; not for rescuing them but
ending their shame by bombing the jail and kill them.
9th September 2006

874

MURDER OF A MURDERER
For months there has been no respite in terrorism perpetrated in some
parts of Baluchistan sponsored by Nawab Akbar Bugti and couple of other
sardars. One person was killed in a blast in Hub on 6 th August. Next day, two
Kalpars were killed by gunmen id Dera Bugti area.
Terrorists blew up major pipeline near Sui on 8 th August; gas supply to
Karachi was disrupted. Iran assured that it wont allow any sanctuary for
BLA. Next day, another gas pipeline was blown up; third in less than a
week. A bridge on road to Karachi was blown up by rebels on 10th August.
Two days later, an aide of Akbar Bugti surrendered along with nine
associates. Bomb blast in Kohlu hospital killed a woman on 13 th August.
Next day, bomb blasts in Hub, Barkhan, Rakhani and Quetta killed three
people and wounded nine others.
Two paramilitary soldiers were killed in landmine blast in Dera Bugti
area on 17th August. FC seized large arms and ammunition cache from
Sangsila area. Next day, gas pipeline was blown up disrupting supply to
some parts of Sindh.
FC troops recovered large cache of weapons and drugs in Dera Bugti
area on 19th August. Next day, insurgents blew up a gas pipeline in the Loti

875

gas field. Thirteen people were wounded in a bomb blast in Quetta on 24 th

August.
The first ever-tribal jirga in Dera Bugti unanimously announced to
abandon the Sardari system in Bugti tribe. Another resolution called upon
the Marri and other tribes to hand over the accused Akbar Bugti and others
to the Bugtis so that justice could be done with them in accordance with the
tribal tradition. It also called for confiscating the movable and immovable
property of Akbar Bugti. It demanded demolition of jails built by the Nawab
and vowed to end sub-tribes feuds, Wani, and Phori system or Jaga tax.
The inevitable happened on 26th August, Nawab Akbar Bugti along
with some accomplices was killed in a raid on his hideout in a mountain in
Murri area from where he was controlling the perpetration of terrorism. Five
officers and unspecified number of soldiers were also killed in operation
which had started on 24th August after shooting at and damaging two
helicopters a day earlier. This event in which a killer was killed caused
ripples in and around Pakistan.

POST KILLING EVENTS

A day after the incident, two persons, including a policeman, were
killed and 12 cops and as many civilians sustained injuries in violence in
Quetta and other parts of Baluchistan over the killing of Akbar Bugti. Two
grandsons of Akbar Bugti were reported alive. The Government announced
that dead bodies will be handed over to legal heirs. Musharraf vowed to
maintain writ of the government in Baluchistan. Operation will continue,
said ISPR.
On 28th August, complete strike was observed in Baluchistan and
interior Sindh; sporadic incidents of violence were reported and more than
100 people were arrested. Opposition members, as a mark of protest,
continued the National Assembly session, after the Speaker had adjourned it
without allowing any speeches. PML-N sought resignations of its MPs.
Killing of Bugti wont affect political process, said Prime Minister.
Next day, four persons were killed, four injured and about hundred
arrested in Hub and Quetta during violent protests. Gas pipeline and electric
pylons were blown up in Kalat. Five people were injured in a blast in
Lahore. Government claimed that 2,000 Murris have surrendered.
ISPR released some details of the incident. Akbar Bugti was not
targeted. Seven or eight caves were found in area from where the helicopters
876

had been fired upon. On 26th a cave was found with huge boulder at its
opening. Troops entered the cave with Bugti guides. Suddenly a huge
explosion caused the collapse of the cave killing four officers and one JCO,
but one of the guides survived. Dead bodies of two soldiers were recovered
on 26th and three were recovered next day. Huge amount of ammunition and
satellite phone, Rupees 100 million and $ 96,000 were recovered from the
cave. The operation against miscreants and terrorists would continue till all
private militias are disarmed, law and order is restored and miscreants and
terrorists are eliminated.
Bugtis relatives did not respond to governments offer to take them to
witness the process of retrieving the body of the deceased. Bugtis killing is
a blow to integrity of federation, said Benazir. US urged calm, but Afghan
parliament expressed concern over Akbar Bugtis killing. Afghan warlords,
the weapon merchants, mourned the loss of a regular customer.
Violent protests continued on 30th August; main highways were
blocked, radio transmission building in Turbat was rampaged and railway
track near Mastung was blown up. Strike was also observed in Baluchdominated areas of Sindh. Bugtis dead body was located under huge
boulder. Shakil Shaikh reported brewing of family feud over claims of
succession. The Nawab had left massive collection of property and
undeclared successors. Nasim Zehra declined award in protest over Bugtis
killing.
Next day, Chief Minister, in a meeting in Quetta, was informed that
rioters had set ablaze or damaged 93 government buildings, 87 shops, 31
houses, 28 banks and 37 vehicles over the past four days in various parts of
the province.
Shutter-down strike was observed on the call of ARD. One JCO of
Rangers and five others were injured in shoot-out in Karachi. Akbar Bugti
was buried in Dera Bugti quietly in the absence of his family members who
had refused to attend the funeral. They tried to create confusion about the
identity of the dead and some sections of the media joined in this noble
cause.
Akbar Bugtis body was retrieved and the authorities announced the
burial in Dera Bugti on Friday; the heirs of the deceased refused to attend
funeral as they demanded delivering of dead body in Quetta. APC of
Opposition parties asked the Supreme Court to take suo motu notice of the
killing of Akbar Bugti. Nawaz asked opposition groups to quit assemblies.

877

Ansar Abbasi reported, so far, every official word on the issue has
created more confusion than removing the smoke hovering over the secrets
of Kohlu Mountains. No doubt, any furthering of this confusion will not do
any good to us as a nation.
On 2nd September, Jam denied any rift among coalition partners in
Baluchistan government. He warned against any anti-state activity in the
province. He also said that the government had expressed willingness to
handover the dead body, but no body turned up.
Next day, BNP resigned from Senate, assemblies and local
government. Thousands marched in Quetta to vent anger over Bugtis
killing. Six persons were injured in a grenade attack. Gas supply to Mastung
and Kalat was disrupted after blowing up of pipeline. ARD decided to
protest on 6th and 10th September. MQM organizer in Baluchistan resigned.
Durrani urged end to politics of the dead. Government released fact-sheet on
atrocities committed against humanity in Baluchistan.
Three Massouri tribesmen were killed and seven wounded in an
ambush near Naseerabad on 4th September. MPs of BNP-Mengal resigned
from assemblies. MMA considered resigning from Baluchistan government.
Musharraf vowed to rid Baluchistan of sardari system as people were fed up
with it. He promised amnesty to those who surrender. We are not involved in
Baluchistan, said US official.
Next day, resignations of two BNP MPs were accepted. Thirty out of
50 Ferrari camps have been destroyed, claimed Sherpao. On 6 th September,
shutter down and wheel jam strike was observed in Baluchistan. MNA Rauf
Mengal also resigned.
A senior police official was shot dead and another injured while two
alleged criminals were killed in an encounter in Loralai district on 7 th
September. Three days later, at least 15 persons were wounded in a bomb
blast in Quetta. Bugtis son demanded independent postmortem. Next day, at
least six people were killed and 17 wounded in a blast near Rakhini hospital.
Government was ready to facilitate Bugtis DNA test, said Durrani.

CONDEMNATION
It is unfortunate that our political leaders have started cashing in on
Nawab Bugtis death for their own vested interests. They are willingly or
unwillingly making a hero out of him, wrote Zarak Khan from Sibi. Mr
Bugti has been anti-government ever since he joined politics though he
878

himself was a former chief minister and governor of Baluchistan. His anticentre stance was acceptable because it was based on the principle of
demanding full autonomy for the provinces but his anti-Pakistan activities
were inexcusable.

Nationalist leaders and activists, for reasons understandable,

resented the killing strongly. Violent protests in Quetta and some other
places were reported, but the constituency of the deceased remained calm
and quiet. The reasons of this contrast were clear. The remaining tyrants in
Baluchistan saw a threat to them in the killing of Akbar Bugti. They had to
do something to check it. On the other hand, the people of Dera Bugti
heaved a sigh of relief, which spoke of the worth of services rendered by
the deceased to his people.
Any reaction of a nationalist remains incomplete without blurting out
anti-Punjab sentiment. Muhammad Ahsan Yatu said, loaded with different
kinds of moralities and immoralities, hunger and greed, the outsiders, the
Aryans, Pathans and Arabs, used Punjab only as a platform to move
towards and to settle in more fertile pastures; the Ganges-Jamuna plains.
These transitory settlers, who came in the millions through thousands
of invasions, were the cause of constant uncertainty, which has left not so
good impressions on the Punjabi psyche. They have become a lot, full of
fears.
He inadvertently acknowledged that Punjab has been the victim of
hordes afflicted by hunger and greed, due to which Punjabis suffer from
perpetual fear. Punjabis fear persisted after creation of Pakistan in a different
form: the burden of preserving integrity of the new-born state was left to
Punjabis. The hordes within Pakistan kept exploiting this fear by
threatening to undo the federation.
They did it to scrounge as much political and economic benefits as
possible. As regards common Punjabis, they are as much neglected as people
of other provinces; perhaps, a deeper look would reveal that they are
exploited more than others.
Yatu added, death and greed had no meaning for him (Akbar Bugti);
the commitment did. As Sartre said, I exist, because I am committed. The
big man has not died; he will continue to exist. Death has a meaning only
for the fear-filled dwarfs, who killed him.
He was not killed by any one, but he murdered himself to escape
humiliation of capture. It was no more than an encounter of law enforcing
879

forces with a criminal who had opened the account of countless murders by
murdering a fellow tribesman at the age of twelve and Punjabis had
absolutely played no role in that.
Masooda Bano regretted Punjabs apathy. As Baluchistan suffers
protests and strikes in the wake of Akbar Bugtis death, Punjab stays
absolutely calm. There seem to be many people in the province who have
become experts on the tribal politics of Baluchistan and are keen to note how
the feudal system is the root cause of Baluch backwardness. They justify
Bugtis killing as a relief for his tribesmen who were being denied the right
of education and other rights.
These are not just those who are in power but also ordinary middleclass people, though often from military households. It is interesting that
suddenly the Baluch poor have become so dear to these people, who
otherwise had never uttered a word of support for the Baluch The claim
that the Baluch population, and for that matter the Sindhis as well, resent
the larger province, which dominates the centre, is not a myth.
Shahzwar Akbar Bugti cast doubts on burial of the deceased. I
would like to say that it is very strange that a man who was six feet three
inches tall put in a coffin which could not have been more than five and a
half feet long. He never wore a ring nor did he possess a wallet, yet the
authorities claimed to have found these things in his possession. The watch
and the spectacles were shown so triumphantly by the DCO of Dera Bugti,
as if he had conquered the universe.
When the authorities were asked why nothing happened to the
Nawabs watch and spectacles despite the fact that his whole body and face
were said to have been crushed by a boulder, the reply was confusing. After
that, as if to cover up the story, the authorities said nothing happened to his
face, and hence his spectacles were intact.
It is worth noting that even the journalists who were present at the
burial were not shown the face of the body and the only reason I can think
for this is that the government was afraid that its claim that the body was
indeed of Nawab Bugtis would be challenged Why is there heavy
security around the so-called grave of Nawab Bugti? What are they trying
to hide?
Opposition political parties condemned the killing of Akbar Bugti
primarily for scoring point against the government rather than mourning the
loss of a great leader. They remembered him as seasoned politician

880

possessing deep political wisdom and attributed to him other similar

qualities.
Azam Khalil opined, Sardar Akbar Bugti in spite of having fierce
looks was perhaps the last civil politician who could claim to have
immaculate integrity and principles. Above all, he was well-read and
could have easily taught political history in any good university. He was a
friend of Pakistan and had a great attachment with the city of Lahore and all
those who enjoyed a good hot cup of tea with him in a local five star hotel
would definitely remember his mercurial style and his fine manners. He was
charismatic leader like his friend, the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and could also
raise the passions of his people.
Abida Hussein showered praise on him generously. Nawab Akbar
Khan Bugti, a legend for the Baluch, a hero in the grand tradition of all
those who espouse a cause and know how to die for it In my thirty-five
years in political wilderness of my country I have seen the most brilliant
leader of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, hanged and the most courageous
leader of Pakistani people, Nawab Akbar Bugti, felled in an operation by
forces, but who keep losing us pieces of our country. In fact, the former was
hanged after he masterminded disintegration of Pakistan and the latter met
his fate after setting on a similar course.
These forces are comprised of the ultimate feudal cabals who
grab lands, and bungalows and plazas and permits, who humble us before
India and the entire world, who violate the Constitution and whose hirelings
argue against the Constitution, who undermine the rights of ordinary folk,
while claiming a right to their personal safety and security, causing
hardships and inconvenience wherever they move.
Now, who will lead the Bugti? Mercenaries from Punjab or will it
be the hirelings of those who spurn and disparage all local languages, who
disown all local cultures, those who bow and genuflect with great ease
before the gods of Mammon, but who disparage the Godhead of all those
who are the salt of the earth and true to their salt. Will the Bugtis be led by a
Dar or a Ghuman or a Warriach? At least the Niazis are out of it this time
around.
Senator Tanvir Khalid from Karachi tried to answer the angry lady
from Jhang. Why was Bugti hiding? Why did he always blackmail
successive governments? He ruled his tribe with an iron fist and did not care
to educate the poor people of his area. And though he asked for a lions share
of the revenue from the federal governments use of land, he hardly spent
881

any of that on his areas socio-economic development Did he not kill

many innocent people and drove thousands others from their homes? At least
now these people have come back. It is painful when the media and the
politicians do not paint a true picture of the man.
Shakir Husain observed, Mr Bugti who was a colourful character to
say the least ridiculed most opposition leaders, who are today using his
death to their political advantage, and he wouldnt even have lunch with
most of them if he were alive today. Its clear that in todays enlightened and
moderate Pakistan, as has always been the case, the truth is always in the
line of fire as are the people.
Feudal cabals were not alone in criticizing the armed forces. All guns
blazed against Army, because of one man who has refused to shed his
uniform. No one talked of soldiers who laid their lives for no personal
grandeur or monetary gain; instead they were accused of extra judicial
killing with the intent to legitimize their murder by a terrorist.
B A Malik from Islamabad wrote, anybody can through the barrel of
a gun become an Ayub, a Yahya, a Zia or a Musharraf but men like Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto and Akbar Bugti were different because they refused to bow
down before the forces of hypocrisy.
Bhutto and Bugti frequently used gun to kill their opponents with
impunity for the personal gains but Zia and Musharraf did it for different
reasons or might have done for the same reason but they chose the rivals
worthy of their status and not the ordinary innocent citizens.
Kamran Shaukat from Lahore said, finally it has happened. What else
can a military dictator do than to bombard those who do not obey him?
Military men do not seem to believe in dialogue. The government should
have negotiated with Akbar Bugti instead of killing him, but unfortunately, it
seems, generals do not believe in negotiation.
I should point out that my father and grandfather were both army
officers. If someone like me feels so strongly against the armys involvement
in politics then I am afraid there will be many more whose feelings will be
even greater.
The print media tried to be impartial. The News wrote, let us not
mince words: Akbar Bugti may have been courageous and charismatic but
he was also ruthless, stubborn and brooked no dissent in his fiefdom. He
was known to cut deals with the establishment in his time and was
responsible for much death and destruction.

882

Subsequently the newspaper added, one would have thought that the
government any government would want to exercise some kind of
damage control after such an incident. But what we have is statement after
statement, all of such nature that they can only provoke those who do not
see eye to eye with the government on the happenings of August 26 and
after. First we had the parliamentary affairs minister saying in parliament
that the sardar was justly killed and now we have the chief government
spokesman actually chiding the opposition for playing politics with Nawab
Bugtis body.
Analysts expressed mixed views. Burhanuddin Hasan was of the view
that military action was not the only option available to the government. All
avenues of dialogue should have been exhausted before reaching the
stage of this drastic action. The committee appointed by the president some
time back to negotiate the demands of Nawab Akbar Bugti had submitted a
report to the government but its recommendations were not implemented.
Nawab Bugti said a number of times that his demands for greater autonomy
for Baluchistan agreed upon during the negotiations with the committee
were ignored by the government and he felt betrayed.
M B Naqvi opined, killing of Bugti was a big political mistake
because he was not an ordinary individual and symbolized Baluch
nationalism. It is the consciousness of an identity that one possesses on the
basis of race, language, history, religion or culture. Does anyone oppose the
idea that identity with any ethnic factor can cause a strong reaction? It is not
a law and order matter at all. The reaction will of course be proportionate to
the offence caused. While maintaining law and order is the duty of all
governments, it is not necessary to be stupid or ignorant for it should know
how to solve basic political problems by political means.
Ikram Sehgal wrote, educated by Baluch standards, Akbar Bugti
lived a dual Dr Jekyll-Mr Hyde existence. An urbane autocrat in the
drawing rooms of the elite and sophisticated, he was a despot for his tribe,
not tolerating dissent and was cruel even to his dedicated followers. The
irony is that he may well become in death what he tried but could not be in
life: a cult hero for the Baluch. He will now be seen as a martyr.
M Ismail Khan said, a merciless, arrogant troublemaker or a
passionate politician fighting for the cause of the people only time will
determine Bugtis true stature. Obviously he was not in favour of a normal
life and a natural death. He was interested in becoming a martyr, a hero for

883

the Baluch nationalists. He wanted to make sure that his death generated
new fuel for the fledgling secessionist movement.
Dr M S Jillani wrote, Nawab Akbar Bugtis death acted as a vent for
expressing pent-up emotions and frustrations suffered by the people of
Baluchistan. Sections of society with the same fate in other provinces joined
them to protest against the affluent and the powerful in the country.
Ironically, the protest was being made over the death of a tribal
chieftain most of whom are known for their autocratic ways.
Another irony is that the most lethal phase of conflict between Mr
Bugti and the government started with the decision of the government to
build physical infrastructure, especially the roads, and constructing
cantonments to create employment for the local population and bringing the
most modern and fulfilling lifestyle to the doorstep of the common Baluch
Yet a third irony about protests after 26th August was that like the other semiliterate populations, rioters destroyed public services, facilities and
equipment meant for the convenience of the people.
The fourth irony is regarding the destruction of businesses and
property owned by settlers from other provinces, especially the Punjab,
and hostility towards individuals. It is a curious phenomenon. For complex
reasons, the wrath of the people of small provinces of Pakistan is generally
directed towards the people of Punjab.
But as mentioned earlier, the differences between the Punjabis and
non-Punjabis are of historical origin, apart from the fact that Punjab by far
is the largest province of the country in terms of population and happened to
be the most literate and economically rich area even before independence. In
the pre-1947 era, it had a conspicuous place in the Indian empire. That
momentum has been continuing.
Common Pakistanis also expressed their sentiments. Engr S T
Hussain from Lahore said, After the death of Nawab Bugti all the political
parties are making it a political issue. No one has expressed sympathy and
condolence for those army officers, soldiers and tribal men who also died.
Mr Bugti was the head of a political party and if he was fighting for the
rights of the people of Baluchistan he should have followed the example of
the Quaid General Musharraf has done a great service to the country
by establishing the writ of the state.
Lt Col Jamshed Bajwa observed, some exiled leaders are
demanding registration of an FIR against the head of the state for Nawab
Bugtis murder. I am puzzled. I advise these leaders to see the light of day.
884

The fallen leader has always been a trouble maker. His actions have
killed and maimed hundreds of soldiers. No political leader ever raised voice
over the sufferings of these soldiers or their families.
Amin Sheerzai from Singapore wrote, I want to ask the nation why
Bugti has been given so much of importance, what good has he done for
Pakistan or Baluchistan? Have his politics turned Baluchistan into some
wonderland? Have the Baluch got their rights under him? Did he not kick
out his own people out of Dera Bugti including the Kalpars and other tribes?
Was he not against development projects? Has he allowed education to come
to his areas?
Nusrat Hussain from Islamabad said, I am totally appalled when I
read about educated men condemning the governments action against a
man who usurped the rights of his own people, depriving them of
education, and did nothing for their betterment when he was in power. I fully
support the government on this issue. For Pakistans survival it is important
that we end the scourge of feudalism.
Sher Suleman from Rawalpindi wrote, what
Bugti doing in the caves? Those who destroy gas
pylons, bridges and explode bombs in public places
rebels or may be traitors. The government, for once,
policy.

was Nawab Akbar

pipelines, electricity
can only be termed
is pursuing the right

Syed Mohsin Rizvi from Lahore said, now-a-days when the politicalopposition of the country is blowing the death of Nawab Akbar Bugti out of
proportion, cant anyone ask them how many of them, individually or
collectively, went to ask him to negotiate a peace-deal by not creating a
state within the state? Dont they know how much money he used to receive
from the government for use of the land on which the Sui gas fields are
situated? Did he ever distribute a fraction of this money to his tribes people?
Did he not create conditions which forced members of rival tribes to
migrate to other areas where they and their families led a miserable
existence for years?
Jamal Hussain from Karachi talked of making an issue of a nonissue. Nawab Akbar Bugtis mode of burial has been widely slated by all
opposition leaders particularly by the MMA stalwarts. They have denounced
it as un-Islamic and against all social norms. While the latter charge may be
true, can someone enlighten me on the un-Islamic aspect of the burial?
My understanding of Islam is that the burial should be accomplished
without undue delay and preferably close to where the death occurs. Yes,
885

traditionally in our part of the world burial gets delayed when dead bodies
are even flown from abroad and interred in the family/community
graveyards. So on what grounds is Nawab Akbars burial being termed
as un-Islamic?
Abdul Hannan from Islamabad wrote, I am quite shocked over the
hue and cry over the death of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti. All the political
parties are making it a political issue so they can use it as a tool against the
military government. I am a believer of a democratic Pakistan and against
the present military dictatorship but even then I believe if there is someone
who could bring down the regime in Dera Bugti it could only have been the
army. Moreover, the army has the right to use force against anyone who uses
weapons against it.
Those mourning his death by calling him a freedom fighter
should explain what good he exactly did by destroying gas pipelines to
collecting royalties from the government. If he is a freedom fighter what
should we call those martyred officers who laid down their lives in an
attempt to negotiate a peace deal with him?
Sana Farooq from Rawalpindi said, I wish Akbar Bugti and his
family had devoted their lives towards the betterment of their impoverished,
illiterate and backward people, given their immense power, wealth and
resources It is irony of fate that from 1947 onward the Baluch sardars
and their families enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle while depriving their
subjects of the benefits of modern living including healthcare, education
and business. What crimes have the poor Baluch committed that they should
continue to languish in the Dark Ages?
He may not have been a proclaimed offender but he had committed
plenty of offences to be declared as such with appropriate amount of headmoney. By that count his killing was no different from elimination of
numerous criminals in police encounters during Shahbaz Sharif rule in
Punjab, which helped in bringing down the crimes in that province. The
affect so created was hailed by majority of the masses, though some lawlovers had criticized police for extra-judicial killings. There were many
who condemned this killing as well.
M Azhar Khawja from Lahore wrote, the way Nawab Akbar Bugti
has been killed was unnecessary and it amounts to brutal murder He
and his idiosyncrasies that could have been ignored and we should have
negotiated with him since he was an educated man. He also knew that he

886

could no fight a regular army. He could have been persuaded through

dialogue or through political bribe.
During my army career, I spent more than six years in Baluchistan. I
toured the entire province and had an opportunity to interact with people in
both urban and rural areas. Except for Quetta, where I felt more comfortable
with locals, I always felt like an alien meeting the Baluch in the rural areas.
We captured a number of local Mengals who were surprised to know
that we were Muslims and not Britishers (Farangis). They would obey their
sardar even at the cost of their lives. All their leaders had hideouts in the
mountains, as was the case with Nawab Akbar Bugti. So we decided to lay a
siege and block all the routes leading to the hideouts. Obviously we could
not fight them in a hide-and-seek fashion. After two months their local
commanders surrendered and the operation came to an end on our terms.
Riaz Chaudhry from UK opined, it is not the role of an army to kill
its citizens whatever the provocation or nature of differences The people
of Punjabstand shoulder to shoulder with people from NWFP and Sindh to
express their solidarity with their fellow citizens and support their demands.
Nawab Bugti shall live in the hearts and minds of the people of Pakistan
as a man if honour who stood up to fight for the legitimate rights of his
people. We share the sorrow of his family and pray for his departed souls.
T Mallick from Lahore opined, if the people of Baluchistan opposed
the establishment of more cantonments in their province, they were within
their rights. What purpose these cantonments serve, other than being
developed as real estate posh housing societies?
If this regime can initiate a dialogue with a party, whose leader
has on record stated in India, that the creation of Pakistan was a mistake,
why cannot it do so with people like Akbar Bugti who lived within
Pakistan and was its citizen? It is alright for the MQM to voice its demands
for more federal grants, but it is wrong if Bugti did the same? On this count
the criticism is justified. All criminals should be treated equally.
M Shaban Uppal from Karachi was of the view that sometimes even
geniuses commit blunders. The same seems to have been done by our
visionary and enlightened leadership in dealing with the case of Nawab
Akbar Bugti. While a host of questions remain unanswered, the issue has
been allowed to be blown up beyond proportion and due significance.
Syed Imran Ahmad from Karachi said, I am no fan of Nawab Akbar
Bugti but being a Pakistani it deeply hurts me when we show no respect for

887

law. If the late Nawab was guilty of breaking the law, the government
has itself done the same. But I assume that in Pakistan there are different
yardsticks for the people in power than those who are ruled. Imran himself
was using the same different yardstick while condemning the death of
Akbar Bugti and ignoring scores of others killed in the operation as well as
many of those murdered on the orders of the Nawab.

APPREHENSIONS
Bugtis death could well be a watershed in the troubled relationship
between Baluchistan and the Centre, wrote the News. The government
hopes that it will mark the beginning of the end of the strife in the troubled
province. On the other hand, it may well reinforce the sharp mistrust of
Islamabad, Punjab and the military among a section of the Baluch
population. The repercussions of his death will cast a long shadow over
Baluch-Centre relations for the foreseeable future.
Imtiaz Alam opined, by meeting a violent end Nawab Akbar Khan
Bugti may now become a martyr for the Baluch nationalist movement.
The irony is that he was never a part of this movement, except in the recent
past when he took to the hills to fight the army. He always fought only for
his personal interests.
Widespread protests against the killing of the chief of the Bugti tribe
in the Baluch-dominates areas of Pakistan indicate the radical turn the
Baluch nationalist movement is going to take in the wake of Mr Bugtis
death. It will pave the way for the unification of the Baluch nationalist
movement and create sympathy for the Baluchistan Liberation Army
In the days ahead, the demands of the Baluch nationalist movement
will be further radicalized and they will be on a collusion course with
Islamabad. It will help create a joint front of the smaller provinces against a
federation that has not been allowed to work under both civilian and military
rules.
Kamila Hyat was of the view that the manner in which Nawab Akbar
Bugtis death has come also means that solving the problems of
Baluchistan has become a task ridden with even more complexities than
before. Any lasting solution, of course, can come only if issues of provincial
autonomy are squarely addressed and a genuine attempt made to examine
the root-causes of the perceptions of discrimination and injustice felt by the

888

people of Baluchistan since 1947, leading to a series of revolts extinguished

only through military action.
Shafqat Mahmood wrote, Akbar Bugti was a proud man (arrogant, to
be correct) who died because we closed all his escape routes, not in a literal
military sense, but in the larger reality of his existence: One mans battle is
now becoming a cause much bigger than his woes. It has turned into a
catalyst for the people of smaller provinces to vent their anger. We may kid
ourselves that we are a federation but for the Baluch, rural Sindhis and a
section of Pushtun, this is not an association of equal partners. They think
this is not a federation at all because they or their representatives are
powerless and just used for window dressing to create an illusion of
participation.
Zulfiqar Ahmad from Chitral wrote, due to military interference in
national politics the territorial integrity and the national solidarity of the
country has always suffered. We salute Nawab Akbar Bugti for sacrificing
his life. He has added a new chapter to the cause of nationalism and set
a standard for other nationalist leaders to follow. I would like to remind
those making speeches that people can no longer be fooled by empty
rhetoric.
Ghazi Salahuddin commented, Bugti episode is likely to serve as a
catalyst. Very instructive is the conduct of some leading members of the
ruling coalition who are personally affected by the killing of Akbar Bugti but
have no moral courage to question the gung-ho approach of the president
and the military.
Muhammad Ejaz Khan said, Baluch nationalist parties seem to
have united at least for the time being once again. Since the news of the
incident came out they have been raising their voices, lodging their protests
and devising plans for the future from a single platform. So far, they have
been reasonably successful in their efforts.
Adnan Rehmat wrote, with his fiery defiance, Bugti emerged as the
symbol of Baluchistan wronged. His white-bearded face has become the
face of Baluchistan resistance and will come to haunt the Establishment.
He started off from the national, devolved to the provincial and regressed to
the tribal.
Farhatullah Babar opined, Akbar Bugtis death is not only most
tragic but also potentially most explosive as he had opted for politics of
the federation even alienating other Baluch leaders Nawab Khair Bakhsh
Marri and Sardar Attaullah Mengal who turned into his bitter tribal rivals.
889

He was the head of a political party, the Jamhoori Watan Party that had
representation in the Senate, the National Assembly and the provincial
assembly of Baluchistan. He had personally welcomed the Quaid at Quetta
as a mark of his allegiance to Pakistan and practiced federal parliamentary
politics. His death will only strengthen the Baluch nationalists belief that it
is no use negotiating their rights in the context of federation.
The rulers in Islamabad will have to bend backwards to redress
the wrongs suffered by the people of Baluchistan and to disabuse them of
the belief that they were cheated all along. This is the only way to keep the
ghost of Bugti from resurrecting its head from his grave and chasing us.
M Mahtab Bashir from Islamabad observed, those who killed him
have harmed the federation beyond imagination. This death can be a
watershed in the future development of the province. The way forward lies
in political dialogue. One suggestion is to change the political leadership to
minimize tension and only a stable and democratic political government can
do it. The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the armed forces from
politics, restoration of true democracy and a fair distribution of resources
will greatly benefit us.
Shafqat Mahmood in his another article wrote, the political reaction
to Nawab Akbar Bugtis death is beginning to gather momentum Probably
the most significant political development is the possibility of all
opposition parties getting together in some sort of a Grand National
Alliance.
Internally, there is widespread anger in the smaller provinces against
the centre which is being seen, correctly or not, as an extension of Punjab.
No one is fooled by this faade of a democracy that is perceived to be
nothing greater than a camouflage for military rule The specter of
Musharraf supported only by the military and being opposed by every
political force in the country is a real possibility. We are a house divided
and ill prepared to face any real challenge to our integrity.
There were many who saw the other side of the picture. M Ejaz Khan
reported, although life moved on in Dera Bugti, the underlying tension was
hard to miss as few were willing to comment on the burial. Mir Ahamadan
Bugti, a notable of the Bugti tribe and cousin of Nawab Bugti, said the Bugti
Jirga which he is a part of that had announced an end to the sardari
system in Dera Bugti just a few days ago did not feel it necessary to offer
the Namaz-e-Janaza on Friday because a Ghaibana Namaz-e-Janaza had

890

already been offered. If I had attended the last rites of Nawab Bugti, the
people of Dera Bugti would have stoned me to death.
Rahimullah Yusufzai observed, it appears the Jamhoori Watan
Party has been left leaderless and rudderless after Nawab Bugtis death
and its remaining leadership is in no position to meet and decide the future
course of action so soon after the tragedy. In fact, the JWPs future remains
uncertain because the party would have to decide whether to continue sitting
in the assemblies or follow in Nawab Bugtis steps and wage an armed
struggle against the state.
Some analysts and experts drew parallels with East Pakistan and
saw Pakistan at the brink of disintegration. They feared that the dead Akbar
Bugti could be more dangerous for Pakistan; inadvertently acknowledging
that live Bugti was also dangerous for Pakistan. They criticized the military
regime for its inability to resolve the issue through dialogue. Instances were
quoted when in the past similar situations were averted through political
process. Nobody dared say that aversions of the past had led to the
inevitable that happened on 26th August.
Mir Jamilur Rahman observed, the reaction to the violent death of
Nawab Bugti has been ferocious throwing the country yet in another crisis
I first saw desecration of national flag in Dhaka during the East
Pakistan crisis and now I am seeing it happening in Baluchistan. I first
saw the wanton killing of non-Bengalis in East Pakistan and now I am
reading about the Punjabis being targeted by furious Baluch youth. It shows
the amount of hatred that the death of Nawab Bugti has generated in the
Baluch against Islamabad and Punjabis.
Punjabis were killed like the picnickers near Kolpur when the socalled great politician was alive. The hatred against Punjabis has been part
of the strategy of the nationalists and the enemies at their backs, who blame
Punjabis for all the miseries of their people and who themselves prefer to die
in their cave-hideouts, sitting over coffers containing crores of Rupees.
He added, the military mind acts quite differently from that of a
politicians especially when holding ultimate state power. The military
dictator is completely at loss, and astonished too, when he encounters
defiance to the writ of his government. He wonders why people dare to defy
him when he commands half a million soldiers equipped with the modern
weapons and ammunition.
Nawab Bugti has emerged a bigger and more important leader after
death. Although he advocated provincial autonomy, but now voices are
891

distinctly heard for independent Baluchistan. He may no longer be a

Sardar of his tribe but he has been accepted as an icon of light, resistance
and liberation by all the Baluch wherever they might be. Another way to
look at it is that the Nawab rendered no service to his country or his people
during his long life-span and his death was exploited by the flock of his
feather to cause more harm.
Kamila Hyat said, the continuing military operation in Baluchistan
can do nothing to build a stronger nation, within which diversity of culture,
language and opinion is celebrated rather than being ruthlessly crushed. Far
away from the troubled horizon of Baluchistan, it is the virtual silence seen
in the in the Punjab that is most disquietening. This is especially true in the
context of history. The same silence, the same apparent indifference, had
prevailed during the months that saw East Pakistan break away from
the countrys western wing, and with its independence shatter the myth that
religion alone could hold the people of a diverse nation together.
Dr M S Jillani disagreed with such apprehensions. Many a writer has
likened the situation in Baluchistan to that in East Pakistan in 1971. One
does not agree with that analogy. The global situation and pressures within
the region demand cohesion and unity. Only if a major initiative for
reconciliation and understanding is taken without bringing in personal egos
and taking every concerned person into confidence, a new framework for
mutual respect, cooperation, and unity can be forged.
And, may one point out the worst irony of all: Should we forget the
army officers and Jawans who bravely walked into a potential disaster
area in line of their duty? Arent they among the first to reach every
calamity-hit area to comfort, rescue, rebuild and lay their lives without
rubbing in their ethnicity? Let us include them and their families in our
prayers.
The mention was also made of foreign game in Baluchistan. Ayaz
Ahmad from Rawalpindi wrote, the end of Akbar Bugti heralds the end of
an era. Much can and will be written on this. There may be some in Pakistan
who will mourn his death but I suspect that his biggest mourners will be in
India and Afghanistan.
Imtiaz Alam apprehended, it may also cause things to go bitter
between New Delhi and Islamabad. Such a situation wont augur well and
must be avoided, for the resumption of Indo-Pak composite dialogue. New
Delhi is likely to raise the issue which Islamabad may reject as interference

892

in the domestic affairs of the country. It may also deflect the attention from
the main front against terrorism in the tribal areas.
Praful Bidwai wrote, there are some in Indias strategic community
who would like to use the Bugti episode to make the point that the Pakistan
army can act equally effectively against Osama bin Laden and Ayman alZawahiri: if Bugtis location could be determined with precision with the use
of American equipment, and he could be effectively targeted in a remote
cave, then such methods could also be employed vis--vis the al-Qaeda
leaders. Pakistan should, on this view, be pressed to do this and prove its
commitment to the war against terror.
Dr Masooda Bano opined, at a time, when some US scholars are
proposing new boundaries for Muslim states, such mindless military
operations are only going to make Pakistans sensitive areas vulnerable to
external influence. Given that Pakistans relations with the neighbours,
especially with Afghanistan and India are not without friction, such internal
disability only provides opportunity for external intervention.
Farhatullah Babar dwelled on this point. Curiously, Bugtis death
coincided with reports of a purported plan published in the US Armed
Forces Journal with maps showing new boundaries of Middle East including
Pakistan. The article titled Blood Borders argues that borders in the Middle
East and Africa were most arbitrary and distorted and need re-structuring.
Four countries, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are singled out for
major re-adjustments. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have also been defined as
unnatural states. The article argues that border adjustments were necessary
to redress the grievances of ethnic and religious minorities living inside large
Muslim states.
The new boundaries projected in the proposed maps, says US Armed
Forces Journal, redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant
cheated population groups and goes on to identify Baluchs as one of the
cheated people.
The US State Department has rejected suggestions that Washington is
planning to re-draw the boundaries of greater Middle East and Pakistan. It
also insists that the article in question is the work of an individual and does
not reflect US policy. But the fact remains that a journal of its armed forces
has lent its space to the sowing of the seeds of an idea that could gain
currency with continued use of brute force.
Shafqat Mahmood looked at it from other angle. Externally we are
beset not only by an image problem but are seen as less than willing
893

partners in the war against terror. Our image internationally has never been
lower. Acts of terror particularly in India are routinely blamed on us and on
people of Pakistani origin or a Pakistani connection
Our participation in the war against terror was an aspect that won us
friends in the West. This is beginning to wear off as coalition casualties in
Afghanistan multiply. We are now practically neighbours not just to the
Afghans but to the Americans and the Canadians and the Brits who have
sizeable forces in Afghanistan.
We have a small window of opportunity to put our house in order
so that we can deter our adversaries. We must become a genuine
democracy so that our leadership has legitimacy and every province feels
that they have a stake in the system. If any individuals personal ambitions
stand in the way, they must be overcome. Democracy is our only chance to
improve our image and show a united front to our adversaries.
What is the real problem haunting Baluchistan in particular and
Pakistan in general? Muhammad Badar Alam had the answer. The fact that
tribal chiefs exist in a 21st century Pakistan has more to do with how the
state and the central government prop them up because they serve the
purpose of skirting a much-needed covenant between the federal authorities
and the provincial people. For a federal government seeking to cut a deal
that too, a secret, uneven one it is much easier to deal with individuals, no
matter how powerful, than having to satisfy millions of voters or their
popularly elected representatives always fearing a recall by an ever watchful
electorate.
Even if the state is seen sincerely wanting to put an end to the rule of
tribal chiefs in Baluchistan because they hamper the political empowerment,
social uplift and economic development of their subjects, its claim should be
taken with a pinch of salt. Hadnt the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
announced an end to tribal system in Baluchistan amid an earlier military
operation in the province? If yes, then the presence of Baluch chiefs, not
just as the heads of their tribes but also heads of political parties and
provincial governments, goes a long way to expose the inefficiency of the
state and the weaknesses of its writ.
Zarrar Khurro focused on the case of the deceased tribal chief. The
cozy arrangement that had existed between Pakistans establishment and
Akbar Bugti was never more than a marriage of convenience This
arrangement worked out beneficially for both parties, but to the
detriment of the Baluch population, which remained deprived of even the
894

basic necessities of life. Of course, the Baluch people had neither the
inclination nor the means to oppose either the nawab or the government and
so they were conveniently ignored and marginalized by both.
Pakistans domestic demand for natural gas alone growing by six

percent per annum the time had long since come for the exploration and
exploitation of Baluchistans natural resources on an hitherto unprecedented
scale. To increase the area being explored and utilized would have meant
making even greater royalty payments to Nawab Bugti and the granting
of even greater power and freedom of action to him and his followers, This
is something the establishment was clearly unwilling to do, especially in the
wake of the Baluch insurgency, where any act of appeasement by the
establishment would have been seen as a sign of weakness and would have
opened the floodgates for other non-state actors to blackmail the centre.
Therefore, in order to fully utilize the resources of Baluchistan, the
neutralization of Nawab Akbar Bugti was a prerequisite.
The Gwadar port represents a substantial investment on the part of
the governments of Pakistan and China It was absolutely imperative for
Pakistan to ensure the safety of the port itself and the personnel
stationed there to build and operate it. The repeated targeting of the
Chinese engineers stationed in Baluchistan put a great deal of pressure on
the Pakistani government to take serious action, which it eventually took.
Furthermore, whatever trade was to be carried to and from Gwadar
would out of necessity, have to pass through the entire length of Baluchistan
and the security of such convoys would naturally be the responsibility of the
Pakistani government Once again, in order to pacify China and assure
potential transit trade clients of their safety, Nawab Bugti had to be
eliminated.
The third factor in this calculation is the question of international
gas pipelines Regardless of which of these pipelines is built, a substantial
portion of them will pass through Baluchistan where blowing up pipelines
has become something of a hobby Therefore, a message had to be sent to
any and all elements who would even consider such disruptive actions that
the Pakistani state will not allow such elements to go unpunished. Hence,
Nawab Bugti had to be made an example of.
Of course, while economic factors may be the prime
considerations in this equation, they are not the only ones. Pakistan lives
in a very dangerous neighbourhood surrounded by potential and actual

895

enemies, and for two of Pakistans neighbours instability in Baluchistan suits

their interests very much.
The Baluch crisis is by no means over. Having successfully utilized
the military option and having deliberately or accidentally eliminated Akbar
Bugti, it is now more crucial than ever for the aspirations of the Baluch
people to be fulfilled The time has for him (Musharraf) to fulfill his
promise of development and prosperity to the Baluch people. If concrete
political and economic steps are not taken to improve the lot of the Baluch
people, then the time may yet come when the establishment looks back
longingly on the peaceful days when Akbar Bugti was the only one they had
to fight.
Col Riaz Jafri from Rawalpindi urged, saner elements and
intellectuals must come forward to fight the menace as one nation. It is the
need of the hour to stabilize the rocking boat. The government must show
compassion and a general amnesty already announced should be
implemented more liberally. The returning fararis would need immediate
economic assistance before they can settle down to a peaceful life. The
government must also take cognizance of the fact that the future of
Baluchistan depends on the pace of economic development there and an
early accruing of the benefits of that to its people. They must be made to
realize that they may have lost a sardar but not their benefactor.
Ikram Sehgal had a suggestion to deal with those who are using the
incident to gain some political mileage. If the MMA goes ahead with their
threat to walk out of the coalition in Baluchistan, it may be a God-sent
opportunity for the federal government to set things right in the province on
a permanent basis. This should mean governors rule for at least a year and
all political factions taken into confidence and given full representation in
the interim administration, from all districts without exception. Development
on a war footing, especially in the education and health sectors and on
building roads plus other socio-economic projects should be undertaken.
The News wrote, the government can say as much as it wants that the
Mekran Coastal Highway, Gwadar Port and Mirani Dam are all proof of its
commitment to developing Baluchistan but it would be nave for it to think
that death of Mr Bugti, even though he wasnt universally loved figure, will
not play a role in further widening the mistrust between it and Baluch public
opinion. Development is all well and good but it has to come hand-inhand with a political dialogue that translates into a real empowerment
of the Baluch or else the situation will be no different than it was under the

896

British after all they also developed the bulk of its infrastructure,
particularly rail links, but did not transfer any real power to the local
population.
In a subsequent editorial the newspaper reiterated, the slow, often
frustrating path of debate, dialogue and political reconciliation must be
adopted to restore trust and remove deep-seated suspicions. There is no
quick-fix solution to the problems of Baluchistan, a province neglected by a
whole succession of governments in the past Let the tragic killing of
Nawab Akbar Bugti act as a spur to a new, more conciliatory and
consultative approach.

CONCLUSION
Akbar Bugti was a tyrant; arrogant, disrespectful and self-centered
tribal chief, who turned into a saboteur and a terrorist in true sense of the
word. For about half a century, he had been terrorizing his own people who
showed dissent. He also successfully blackmailed successive federal
governments, but went too far by attacking the indispensable dictator and the
inevitable happened.
The circumstances that led to his killing did not prove that he was
killed in pursuit of the rhetoric: Pakistan First. Had it been so, he would have
been taken care of decades ago. Initiation of military operation after rocket
attack in Kohlu left an impression that this was done for preserving the ego:
Musharraf First.
Even if the government wanted to capture the Bugti alive, the
government should have been mentally prepared for his death as men of his
kind, the real tyrants prefer to die than being captured by their rivals. This is
where the authorities faltered.
The death of a tyrant was condemned and mourned by variety of
people for different reasons. His workers or accomplices did it because he
looked after them for the services they rendered for promotion of his
nefarious designs. Some Baluch sardars of his kind did it because they
apprehended similar action against them. Leaders of opposition parties did it
to gain some political mileage. Forces working against the integrity of
Pakistan had to do it. Some weak hearted patriotic Pakistanis did it fearing
more trouble from other trouble-seekers.
Majority of the people from deceaseds tribe had a sigh of relief and
picked up the courage to return to the land from where they had been
897

evicted. Most Pakistanis did not rejoice, but were also not inclined to term it
as a condemnable act.
In accordance of the tradition of remembering the dead in good words,
very few dared calling spade a spade. There were many who called him a
hero, a legend, a martyr and saluted him. One should have no problem in
visualizing the fate of the people who worship men like the deceased.
The most glaring and unfortunate irony of the entire episode was that
hardly any one remembered the officers and men of the army who laid their
lives for no personal grandeur or greed. Isnt it matter of shame for entire
nation that there were hardly any words to share the grief and sorrow of the
families of those who laid their lives? May be they were wrong in doing that
for an ungrateful nation.
11th September 2006

ISLAMIC FASCISM
In last five years, Islam and its followers have been progressively but
expeditiously demonized by the Crusaders. At the time of 9/11, Muslims
were termed as fundamentalists lacking tolerance. Soon after the attacks,
some Islamic groups were declared terrorists threatening peace of the
civilized world.
The 9/11 attacks led to invasion of Afghanistan to smoke out the
terrorists. Soon after its occupation, the term Axis of Evil was invented
primarily to invade Iraq and threaten Iran which aspired to acquire nuclear
capability. Meanwhile, all freedom movements launched by oppressed
Muslims were dubbed as terrorists.
As Jihad was the motivating factor of these groups, they were termed
as jihads and Islamic militants and included in terrorists. All those who
assisted them in any way were also included in the list as the sponsors of
terrorism. With occupation of two Islamic states, those who exercised the
right to resist the occupation forces were also condemned as terrorists.

898

Lately, the government of Hams and Hezbollah which is a partner in

ruling coalition has been labeled as terrorists, but the Crusaders refrained
from using more appropriate term: the democratically elected terrorists.
With this engineered expansion of terrorists, almost every Muslim country
harbored some kind of the evil of terrorism.
The Crusaders were not satisfied; they wanted more. When the war in
Lebanon neared completion of fourth week and aggressor and its supporters
faced severe criticism; Pakistan in its endeavour to have a feather in its cap
helped the British intelligence in foiling a terror plot.
The much sought after feather remained elusive, but the terror plot
helped the Western media to divert the focus from unjust war against
Lebanon. Across the Atlantic, it provided an excuse for Bush to proclaim
that he was at war with Islamic fascists.

THE INVENTION
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal was of the view that Bush though likes such
phrases, lacks the intelligence to invent these at his own. He opined that
Bush is no more than a smoking gun; the real man behind the gun is
Rumsfeld. So, it is part of the neocons larger game.
September 11, 2006 will give George W Bush and his team a
perfect opportunity to increase the intensity of their rhetoric by instilling
in Americans a complex fear they first experienced five years ago. In a
systematic effort to launch a psychological warfare against Americans, Bush
and his team began the month by making public speeches. The presidential
speech to war veterans at an American Legion convention in Salt Lake City
repeated the usual Bush rhetoric about security of the civilized world, the
fight against terrorism, and vows of not leaving Iraq until victory is
achieved. This victory he defined as the establishment of a stable
democratic US ally. His oft-repeated line made headlines again: the
alternative was facing terrorists in the streets of our own cities.
Does he really believe what he says? Does Americans believe him? It
seems yes. Bush is totally convinced that he is fighting for the security of the
Americans. While there is growing anti-war lobby and there are critics of the
Iraq War in the United States, a very significant number of Americans who
believe that their government is, in fact, involved in Iraq for the sake of their
security. How has this claim been enshrined as truth for millions of
Americans? Certainly the events of September 11, 2006, helped, but even

899

without that defining day, it would not have been difficult for Bush and
his colleagues to convince many Americans that a war must be fought to
secure their lifestyle.
This is so because millions of Americans live in a fabricated virtual
reality made real for them by the media. They have little access and far
less inclination to see the world through the eyes of anyone but their own
leaders, most of whom share a common vision. The so-called two main
parties of the United States share a remarkably large ground. Democrats may
do some politicking during the upcoming election season, but in reality they
merely want a more efficient, less expensive killing campaign against the
terrorists. These terrorists remain the same for both Bush and his
opponents.
As the election season approaches, Bush and his team are likely to
convince millions of Americans that their security is in fact (i) the security
of the civilized world; (ii) it depends on victory in the war on terror, and (iii)
victory in war on terror, in turn, depends on victory in Iraq. Given these, the
United States of America should not leave Iraq until victory is achieved.
Victory in Iraq is then equated with the establishment of a government
friendly to America.
In reality it is not Mr Bush who speaks these words; the real
ideologue of this most recent American adventure is the Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A man who understands and uses all the tricks
of politicking on blood, Rumsfeld has gained enormous influence on
American foreign policy through his shrewd ways of convincing others to
subscribe to his ideas. He often remains in the background, but others say
what he believes. It appears that he has closely studied mechanisms adopted
by the Nazis to mastermind mass psychology.
One of the things he learned from the Nazis is to use highsounding words aimed at gaining a moral upper hand against enemies.
Thus, it was Rumsfeld who actually launched this season of politicking two
days before the speech made by Mr Bush. He said that the critics of the Iraq
War were suffering from moral and intellectual confusion and he compared
them with those who appeased the Nazis.
It is important to note that two days later, Mr Bush repeated what
Rumsfeld wanted him to say: Americas current enemies are the successors
to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20 th
century. Mr Bush also repeated the Rumsfeld verdict on critics: Many
war critics could be sincere and patriotic, but they could not be more wrong.
900

Rumsfeld is able to survive mounting calls for his resignation over

Iraq, partly because he has placed himself in the centre of the American
midterm election campaign. He moves in circles where he can find support
and launches his aggressive plans from the platform which carry weight and
prestige. For example, he chose a meeting of war veterans to use certain new
terms he has recently coined: The world faces a new type of fascism, he
said. The keyword here is fascism, which gives a sense of moral uplift to
the war veterans. When faced with a vocabulary that matches his, he
attempts to build the attack.
Rumsfelds rise to power and influence has been phenomenalhis
rise to power began in 1969, when he resigned from the Congress to join the
presidents cabinet. From then on, it has been one long journey to more and
more power and influence This man, most likely to be remembered as
the butcher of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, is also known
for his short aphoristic sarcasm: Man and turtle are very much alike, he
once said, for neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out.
The logic behind coining of the phrase was explained by Donald
Rumsfeld. The enemy we face today is different from the enemies we have
faced in the past, but its goal is similar: to impose its fanatical ideology of
hatred on the rest of the world. In speaking to our veterans, I suggested
several questions to guide us during this struggle against violent extremists:
With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly
afford to believe that vicious extremists can somehow be appeased?
Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a
separate peace with terrorism?
Can we truly afford to pretend that the threats today are simply law
enforcement problems rather than fundamentally different threats
requiring fundamentally different approaches?
Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America
not the enemy is the real source of the worlds troubles?
The last question is particularly important, because this is the first
war of the 21st century a war that, to a great extent, will be fought in the
media on global stage. We cannot allow the terrorists lies and myths to
be repeated without question or challenge.
We also should be aware that the struggle is too important the
consequences too severe to allow a blame America first mentality to

901

overwhelm the truth that our nation, though imperfect, is a force for good in
the world.
Duraid al-Baik observed that Bush remarks were difficult to
understand but there was nothing new in it. He said, it is clear that Bush,
who picked up quickly on John Reids announcement about a foiled attempt
to blow up 10 planes by 24 young British Muslims, had little time to
prepare his statement in a way that enabled him to cloak his negative
opinion about Islam behind more diplomatic declaration.
He opted to attack Islam and Muslims instead of addressing the roots
of terrorism that have been growing unchecked even in Europe and amongst
Europeans because of unwise policies. Bush instead should have targeted
the genuine fascists who had been destroying Lebanon for almost a month
on the day the terrorist plot was uncovered.
It is hard to understand why Bush decided to connect fascism with
Islam. It is an unfounded allegation, in this particular case, because the
suspects who are said to have been involved in the attempt to smuggle
explosives in their handbags and blow up planes were all Europeans of
second or third generation Asian descent in addition to one Caucasian
Briton, who embraced Islam months ago.
However, Bushs opinion about Islam and Muslims is not new.
Five years ago, a few days after September 11 attacks, Bush had first
shocked the Islamic World when he said: This crusade, referring to the
war on terrorism
The Daily Star opined, in a series of speeches on the war on terror,
Bush has likened this struggle to the battles that were waged against Nazi
Germany or Soviet Russia. But because the world lacks any serious threats
of the sort of Hitler or Stalin, Bush has resorted to inventing enemies.
According to Bush, a wide range of ideologically opposed groups
everyone from al-Qaeda to Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the Hezbollah resistance
movement in Lebanon, Shiite hard-liners in Iraq and the elected leaders of
Iran constitute a unified to the American way of life. In Bushs distorted
world view, these diverse groups, some of whom have even engaged in
bloody battles against each other, represent different faces of the same
threat.
Bushs invention of enemies is also a great tragedy for the American
people, who will soon mark the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Instead of going after the killers who were responsible for the worst terrorist

902

attack ever committed on American soil, Bush has been using US

resources to chase threats that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

OUT OF FRUSTRATION
Many analysts were of the view that Bush had blurted it out of
frustration. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the neocons are upset,
very upset in fact Israeli attacks in Lebanon failed to produce the desired
results, the expected results, and the result that Washington had been told
would come. Hezbollah was not eliminated Hassan Nasrallah was not
killed and the two captured Israeli soldiers have still not been released
opined Khaled Almaeena.
In 1998 Mr Bush as governor of Texas went to Israel. He went with
Matthew Brooks, a director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, and three
other Republican governors. On the trip, Mr Bush met Ariel Sharon and
Sharon took him on a helicopter tour of the occupied territories. Brooks
says, if theres a starting point for Bushs attachment to Israel, its that
day in late 1998 when he stood on a hilltop, eyes brimming with tears and
heard his favourite hymn read aloud. He brought Israel back home in his
heart.
In addition to undoubtedly being brainwashed on that trip, who
knows how many other ideas and plans Sharon planted in Mr Bushs head?
There is, however, another major problem those in the Republican Party
with ideological and political connections with Israel. For example, the
person who coined the oft-used and oft-condemned phrase Axis of Evil
was a strong supporter of Israel.
Almaeena concluded, we should learn from the most avid supporters
of Israel and how they react to criticism. Any insult to us should be met
with the highest-profile media back-lash, though of course we must take
the greatest care to prevent any kind of violent response. We should employ
the same tactics as our adversaries since those tactics have served them well.
Why should they not serve us just as well? And our intellectuals, those who
are well-educated and well-informed and who understand social and political
nuances, let them reply. Make so much noise and commotion that no one
will dare to use such an offensive phrase as Islamic fascists.
Jim Lobe observed that the aggressive new campaign by the
administration of President George W Bush to depict US foes in the Middle
East as fascists and its domestic critics as appeasers owes a great deal to

903

steadily intensifying efforts by the right-wing press over the past several
months to draw the same comparison.
Given the growing public disillusionment not only with the Iraq
War, but with Bushs handling of the larger GWOT as well not to
mention the imminence of the mid-term Congressional elections in
November and the growing tensions with Ahmadinejads Iran over its
nuclear programme it is hardly surprising that both the administration and
its hawkish supporters are trying harder than ever to identify their current
struggles, including last months conflict between Israel and Iran-backed
Hezbollah, especially with the war against fascism more than 60 years
ago.
In the controversial speech on Tuesday, Pentagon chief Donald
Rumsfeld was even more direct, declaring that Washington faced a new
type of fascism and, in an explicit reference to the failure of western
countries to confront Hitler in the 1930s, assailing critics for neglecting
historys lessons by believing that somehow vicious extremists can be
appeased.
Other regional newspapers were also among the most consistent
propagators of the fascism paradigm and ranked far ahead of other
Canadian outlets in the frequency with which they used key words, such as
appeasement and fascist in connection with Iraq and Iran. He added that
such groups have been linked to prominent hard-line neo-conservatives
here and the right-wing Lekud Party in Israel.
Rahimullah Yusufzai said, the war on terror continues five years after
9/11 and indications are that it would go on forever. In fact, this endless war
against an often hidden enemy has become so blurred in its direction
that it is difficult to pin it down to one or two objectives.
From fighting terrorism to changing regimes, the US-led war on
terror subsequently assumed the form of an imperialist campaign to mould
the world in accordance with American designs. Having stumbled at
formidable hurdles to achieve their colonial objectives, President Bush
and Prime Minister Tony Blair and their policy advisers have been at pains
to variously describe their military campaigns as attempts to advance the
cause of democracy and human rights, tackle the threat posed by rogue states
wanting to make nuclear arms, rid the world of weapons of mass destruction
and build a new, democratic Middle East.
President Bush then gave his war on terror a whole new meaning
when he declared that Americas enemies were Islamic fascists. It was a
904

crude attempt to regain the higher moral ground by comparing Muslims with
the Germans, Italians and other fascists who challenged the Western
democracies in the Second World War and were defeated. It is possible for
the war on terror to assume new shapes and set for itself fresh targets as it
blunders on.
The Guardian wrote, the conclusions are mostly bleak. The first is
that Osama, and others inspired by his iconic standing, can feel pretty
satisfied. On Friday a huge suicide bomb rocked the US Embassy in central
Kabul not the wild Afghan south as NATO ministers met to debate the
fierce resistance now being displayed by the Taliban.
In Iraq, the US and Britain have no clear exit strategy in the face of a
weak government, the strength of the insurgency and the sectarian nature of
the conflict. Israel and Palestinians remain locked in a bloody impasse. The
summer war in Lebanon has revealed a new axis in which a militia backed
by Iran and Syria has shown Israel the limits of its deterrent power.
Iran, a rising power led by a populist loose canon of a president
fixated on American global arrogance, seems on course to acquire nuclear
weapons because, after Iraq, the international community is powerless to
stop it (just as it is, for related reasons, unable to halt the killing in Darfur).
Bushs axis of evil rhetoric has gone but its poisonous legacy
remains from Baghdad to Pyongyang. The view that democracy could be
exported on American bayonets has died a thousand deaths in Iraq. The fact
that Hamas and Hezbollah have democratic mandates for fighting Israel has
blunted even the heartiest neocon appetites for letting stuff happen when
freedom reigns.
Abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have fed the perception
of the double standards that apply in what al-Qaeda and friends call the
crusader war against Islam. A third bitter truth is that that message,
distorted though it is, has fallen on ground richly fertilized by bloodshed in
Iraq. It has also converted a few European and British Muslims to jihadi
terrorism in ways that now threaten our most cherished freedoms, just as
they have undermined in the US.
Bushs recent attacks on Islamo fascism as he burnishes his
credentials as a war leader mirror Bin Ladens rhetoric. The man in the
cave and the man in the White House must not drown out voices of reason
with their inflammatory talk of clashing civilizations. Terrorism must be
fought but kept in perspective.

905

It is unhelpful to view problems over Palestine, Iran or Saudi Arabia

solely through the distorting prism of the war on terror. To do so is to hand
an advantage to the kind of dangerous fanatics who attacked America that
fine autumn morning five long years ago.
Manal Alafrangi said, let us briefly review the results: Bushs
political standing is very much troubled; his country is more hated abroad;
and threats of terrorist attack remain very much imminent today. Not only
has this but he dragged his countrys number one ally, Great Britain, down
with him as a major player in the constructed war on terror.
What made things worse was his use of the phrase Islamic
fascists in one of his early speeches. It made us think: is the war on terror a
war on Islam? And yet, we hardly ever hear the Bush Administration talk
about this point or try to clarify it. It seems Islam is the new communism as
several academics have pointed out; Bush is eager for a war of ideologies.

THE REAL FASCIST

The president would have been better advised to develop an
understanding of fascism before he ascribed it to Islam. Had he done so, he
would have quickly found that Islam and fascism are fundamentally
incompatible, commented Randall B Hamud. Upon a closer analysis,
President Bush would have discovered that there exists in the world today
one state where fascist elements combine with religious fervor to dictate
state policies: Israel.
Fascism has deep historical roots in Israels formation and in certain
of the political parties presently represented in its Parliament, the Knesset.
Israels National Union Party is an admixture of the Molodet and Tkuma
parties, which were progeny of the 1940s Herut, Zeev Jabotinskys political
party that took its cues from fascism.
Perhaps Albert Einstein and some other concerned Jewish leaders
said it best in 1948 when they wrote a letter to the New York Times
commenting upon the formation of the Freedom Party in Israel. They
described the party as closely akinto the Nazi and fascist parties.
Shireen M Mazari was forthright. Even in definitional terms, the US
has altered the paradigm of the war against Islamic fascists Of course, in
terms of the definitions cited above from the Chambers English Dictionary,
Bush could be described as a born-again Christian fascist and Israel is

906

definitely reflecting Zionist fascism so is the war on terror descending

into a war amongst those professing differing brands of fascism?
A fascist audacity marks the Israeli leaderships attacks against
civilians in the Gaza Strip, including innocent picnickers, and the
kidnapping of elected leaders of the Palestinian people. All this in the name
of collective responsibility to go with the notion of coalition of the
willing all of which function outside the UN Charter and the notion of
collective security embodied in it. Yet the attempt is being made to tell the
world that it was the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah
that actually caused the violence in the Middle East.
As for fascism of the Bush Administration, it is only too evident
from the abuse of Muslim prisoners to the targeting of Muslim Americans
under the guise of security to the press censorship to the general hell that
has been unleashed in Iraq. And the Blair government is no better.
Given that we are witnessing a global war amongst fascists, how
were so many Americans able to enter and leave Pakistan undetected when
we Pakistanis are scrutinized not only by foreign immigrations but also by
our own immigration! And who really knows what Dan Futterman and the
other so-called Hollywood folks agenda really was in Pakistan especially
since the US has privatized so much of its now anti-Islamic fascists
war. Surely we need to be more vigilant at our entry points.
Mansoor Jafar expressed similar views. It is always very hard, of
course, to reason with an ignoramus, especially if he is mendacious and
fanatic, let alone if he happens to be the president of the United States
Nonetheless, the truth must be proclaimed aloud, not so much in order to
change the mindset of the sadistic fuehrer at the White House who
apparently is unreceptive to common sense and prefers to parrot crass lies
about just everything from the Ozone layer depletion to the latest Israeli
aggression against Lebanon.
Bushs use of Islamic fascists is a very serious calumny that can be
compared to Adolph Hitlers deliberate vilification of Jews prior to
World War II. It is designed to make people hate and murder Muslims. And
as everyone knows, collective hatred toward a specific ethnic or religious
community is only the penultimate step toward the systematic persecution
and possible extermination of the community.
Yes, there are Muslim extremists and terrorists who ought to be
condemned in the strongest terms. There are also Christians, Jewish and
other terrorists who commit far worse acts of terror and criminality.
907

Terrorists are terrorists because terror has no religion or particular ethnic or

cultural identity. George Bush himself, if truth be told, is probably the
greatest terrorist of our time.
Fascism is characterized by its emphasis on racism, idolatry of the
principle of leadership, its intolerance and one-mindedness as well as
violence and despotism; whereas Islam is a religion whose very name is
derived from peace and whose ideals are overwhelmingly similar to those of
true Christianity and true Judaism.
It is also an open secret that there are many Muslims who do things
that are starkly incompatible with the sublime teachings of their religion.
They need to be condemned unhesitatingly. But the same can be said about
adherents of other religions as well, who too ought to be equally
condemned.
The early American settlers exterminated millions in the name of
manifest destiny. In the past century alone, as many as a hundred million
people were killed in wars waged and sustained by Christians. And, today,
in the name of fulfilling Jewish nationalism, Israel, thanks to active
American backing and support, is committing slow-motion genocide against
the Palestinian people on no other ground than the victims not being
members of the chosen people.
Indeed, the so-called Christian west prevailed, not because of the
excellence of the ideas, ideals and even religions, but rather because it
excelled in applying organized violence against militarily weak and
undeveloped nations.
The West, especially the US and UK, uses the issue of democracy
and human rights as a ready-made tool in the service of its strategic goals.
However, when democracy and human rights dont concord with these
goals, the West encourages and supports despotism and tyranny and
police state repression.
America, where children are taught to give me freedom or give me
death, consistently prevented justice for oppressed Palestinians for nearly
sixty years and actively supported policies and practices that go against
the most elementary American ideals of freedom, liberty and fair-play.
America supported and continues to support ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and
the crudest violations of human rights on the ground that the victims are
children of a lesser God and the oppressors are the ethnic people of God
who can do no wrong.

908

George Bush and cohorts may claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.

However, a quick glance at the man, his mindset and behaviour reveal
that he is many light years away from the sublime teachings of Jesus,
may be peace upon him.
Katha Pollitt explained fascism and the real fascists in plain words.
What is wrong with Islamo-fascism? For starters, it is terrible historical
analogy. Italian Fascism, German Nazism and other European fascist
movements of the 1920s and 30s were nationalist and secular, closely allied
with international capital and aimed at creating powerful, up-to-date, allencompassing states. Some of the trappings might have been antimodernist
Call me pedantic, but if only to remind us that the worst barbarities
of the modern era were committed by the most modern people, to think
it is worth preserving fascism as a term with specific historical content
Second, and more important, Islamo-fascism conflates a wide variety of
desperate states, movements and organizations as if, like the fascists, they all
want similar things and are working together to achieve them.
Islamo-fascism rescues the neocons from harsh verdicts on the
invasion of Iraq (cakewalksrosessweetmeatsChalabi) by reframing
that ongoing debacle as a minor chapter in a much larger story of evil
madmen who want to fly the green flag of Islam over the capitals of the
West. Suddenly its just a detail that Saddam wasnt connected with 9/11,
had no WMDs, was not poised to attack the United States or Israel hated
freedom, and that was enough
But the word is already getting a big reaction in the Muslim World.
As I write the New York Times is carrying a full page open letter to Bush
from the Al-Kharafi Group, the mammoth Kuwaiti construction company,
featuring photos of dead and wounded Lebanese civilians. We think there is
a misunderstanding in determining: who deserves to be accused of being
a fascist!
Fascism lies in the psyche of Americans. Jean Bricmont argued, an
American pacifist, A J Muste, once observed that the big problem after a
war is the winning side: it has learned that violence pays. All of postWorld War II history illustrates the pertinence of that remark.
Edifying stories will be told about the struggle between Good and
Evil and the wicked people who attack us because they dont like
democracy; or womens liberation, or multiculturalism. It will be explained
that we have nothing to do with such barbarism indeed; we prefer to bomb
909

from on high or use embargoes to kill people gradually. But none of that will
solve any basic problem. Terrorism grows in the soil of revolt which is
itself nourished by injustice in the world.
For the immediate future, it is to be feared that those attacks will
have at least two negative political consequences. On the other hand, the
American population, which in its vast majority displays a disturbing
nationalism, risks rallying around the flag, as they put it, and supporting
their governments policy, no matter how barbarous it is. It wants, more
than ever, to protect its way of life, without asking the price paid by the
rest of the planet.
Guy Dinmore and Najmeh Bozorgmeher quoted Mr Khatami who
denounced President George W Bushs description of the enemy as Islamic
fascists. He then turns the table on the western powers, accusing them of
uprooting fascism from the national level but transferring it to the
international arena Today at the international level we see a kind of
fascism, apartheid, unilateralism and a kind of totalitarianism (by the West)
according to which nations are distributed, their interests are distributed and
wars are created.

INSULT TO MUSLIMS
When you first used this expression sometime ago, we thought it
was just a slip of the tongue, a stumble. Your more matured advisors would
surely soon correct you. When General Boykin used this expression, we
thought he would surely be fired. And when other advisors, like Daniel
Pipes, used it we ignored it as the unfortunate bigotry of misguided
Likudniks, though they seemed to fill the corridors of your administration,
wrote Mohammad Hakki in an open letter to Bush.
Even after your actions all of your actions betrayed
administration for, alliance with, and complete support of Israel, even after
the whole world watched the total destruction of Lebanon, we thought that
these actions were simply the result of a broken moral compass. But when
you equate Islam with fascism, you crossed all acceptable lines of
behaviour.
Fascism, Mr President, as defined by Websters New World
Dictionary of the American language is a system of government
characterized by rigid one party dictatorship, forcible suppression of
910

opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental

control, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism, etc. Benito
Mussolini was one founder of modern fascism, but no one ever accused
him of being a Christo-fascist.
You can embrace the Israelis as much as you want. You can never
support their destruction if entire towns and massacres of thousands of
civilians. All of this could go under policy failures, or a broken moral
compass, but attacking one of Gods holiest religions is not a policy
failure it is much worse than that. And here, Mr President, we part ways. I
hope you realize the gravity of the wedge you are creating between the US
and those billion Muslims in the world.
Shireen M Mazari said there should be left no doubt in minds of
Muslims about the intentions reflected by the Bush remarks. In a series of
recent speeches dealing with Iraq and terrorism, he compared the struggle
against Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic militants to fighting the
Nazis and Communists Bush could not have been aware of the fact that
but for the sacrifices on Communist Russia, Nazism may well have
succeeded in its designs. It was not US entry into the Second World War that
alone saved the world from fascism Hitlers Russia debacle was a major
military factor.
If Bush had read his own countrys history he would know that the
Capitalists did not fight the Communists militarily given the nuclear
Balance of Terror and so they used other means which then became part of
the notion of the Cold War To compare the present war against Islamic
fundamentalism and Islamic militants, which has a distinct military
character, to the east-west struggle is factually incorrect. But that is not
what really should concern Muslims. The only military defeat inflicted on
Communists was in Afghanistan by courtesy of the Muslim fighters who are
now labeled as Islamic fascists.
It is the clear message of fighting Islamic militants and Islamic
fundamentalism, as opposed to terrorism per se that should concern us.
After all, fundamentalism exists in all religions and has nothing to do with
violence and extremism that is the arena of obscurantist and extremists and
we need to make this distinction clear in our minds at least. Or else we must
then decry all fundamentalists including of the Bush variety which is the
born-again Christians and the evangelicals, many of whom have a presence
in Pakistan also.

911

Now there should be no doubt at all as to the targets of the present

US administrations military endeavours: It is clearly Islam and therefore
Muslims. That is why Bush finds the Zionist agenda of ridding the region of
the Palestinians and Arabs where possible so in tune with his own agenda.
And this is not simply an emotive reaction to Bush hurling abuses against
Islam and the Muslims. This is an assertion made after examining the
statements of Israeli leaders since the creation of their state.
She recalled some historic facts. In a biography of Ben Gurion,
Israel first Prime Minister, Michael Ben-Zohar, quotes him as stating: We
must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the
cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.
Yitzhak Rabins recollections were cited by the New York Times in
October 1979 where he remembered the following: We walked outside, Ben
Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done
with the Palestinian population? Ben Gurion waved his hand in a gesture
which said, Drive them out.
And if one wants to understand why the Israelis were eager to use
military force against Lebanon at the behest of Bush Administration, recall
Ben Gurions words: We should prepare to go to the offensive. Our aim is
to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for
the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall
establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion,
eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and
take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai. Of course, Ben Gurion would not have
encountered Hezbollah.
She concluded, so there we have it. The Israeli-US agenda for the
Muslim world of the Greater Middle East, which includes Pakistan, Iran and
Afghanistan, is to cut down the power of the Muslim states and riddle
them with internal chaos and internecine quarrels. And unfortunately, the
Muslims have fallen into this trap.
Clearly the war on terror has now degenerated into a war against
Islamic militants and Islamic fundamentalism as far as the Bush
Administration is concerned. So how will Muslim states reconcile this new
Bush agenda with their own support for what was supposed to be a war
against terror, which knows no religion or ethnicity? Some delinkage with
the newly defined US war may become necessary even as Muslim states
deal with the issue of obscurantism and extremism within their own states
and societies.
912

As for the Bush agenda, with the war on terror becoming a war
against Islamic fascism and then Islamic militants defining it in a
religious context will create ever more space for the terrorists. Moreover,
one should not be surprised to find Iraq descending into total anarchy
resulting in the splitting up the country. If that happens, there may be
other territorial adjustments attempted also by the US and its Coalition of
the Willing. In this context, the standoff on the Iranian nuclear issue poses a
serious risk of unwarranted military action by an increasingly more bellicose
US and Israel.
Ansar Abbasi was of the view that Bush, who has proven time and
again during these years to be the greatest threat to world peace himself,
remains arrogant. In spite of the failure to achieve the declared goal of
making the world a peaceful place to live through killing and persecution,
there is no end to the US aggression.
The Muslims bashing all over the world in the garb of hot pursuit
against phantom al-Qaeda and the continued killing of Iraqis, Afghans,
Palestinians and others, has terrorized most rulers of Muslim countries and
made them dance to the tunes of the Americans, this situation is frustrating
for the majority of Muslims.
The Bush-Blair duo and its pet Israel must understand the fact that
peace without justice is simply impossible. Their naivet is that they want
to continue pursuing their policy of butchering Muslims but do not
expect that the latter will react. That seems quite unrealistic. Today the war
between US-led state-terrorism and reactionaries from the Muslim World
dubbed by the West as extremists and terrorists is intensifying with every
passing day.
No one can condone the killing of innocents anywhere in the world.
But the question that needs to be pondered particularly by the Bush-Blair
duo and their stooges is as to how the Muslims should react to the massive
killings of their brothers/sisters in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan,
Kashmir, Palestine and Lebanon.
Shafqat Mahmood observed, there has also been a renewed focus on
what George Bush has chosen to describe as Islamic fascism. That this
description is an insult to a vast majority of Muslims, who abhor violence
and condemn terrorism, has not caused much comment in the media. It
suggests a growing belief in the western intelligentsia that attacks by alQaeda and its franchises are not motivated by earthly concerns but by
Islamic ideals.
913

By introducing the term Islamic fascism and comparing the current

conflict with wars against the Nazis and communism, he is saying that these
terrorists have a global agenda which is motivated by the Islamic religion.
This description in one broad sweep condemns all Muslims because if
Islam has some kind of a violent message, then everyone who believes in
this religion is a potential terrorist.
As far as visions go, the desire of certain Muslim scholars for
universal acceptance of Islam is no different from a similar vision of many
Christian groups both today and throughout history. Although the
colonialists knew better, one justification given for European
colonialism was the spread of the Christianity faith.
One reason why Christian fundamentalists in the United States, who
form a significant core of support for George Bush, support Israel, is
because they believe that Christ will come back to earth only after the people
of Israel have complete control over Palestine. They thus condone every
violent act against the Palestinian people and give strong political support to
the Israeli lobby in the US. Does this mean that one should condemn
Christianity or attribute the sufferings of Muslims at the hands of Israeli and
American forces in the Middle East to Christian fascism?
This line of argument can be taken further to ridiculous lengths. One
could bring up Mr Bushs devout Christianity as his motive for
attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, and some writers in the US are beginning
to do that, but it would be silly. There were many reasons assuaging the
sense of hurt among the American people after 9/11; oil, shoring up Israels
security and rooting out al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, but religion was not one
of them. It would be equally stupid to ascribe terrorist acts by al-Qaeda or its
supporters to the religion of Islam. Why is it so difficult to recognize that
these people have earthly grievances?
A clever technique is to distinguish Islam from what some call
Islamism, as Martin Amiss has done in a long piece in the Sunday observer
last week. Having established this alibi, the entire thrust of the argument is
directed towards the influence of Islamic scholars, in particular Syed Qutb,
on people like Osama. This is then bolstered by quoting selected and out of
context passages from the Quraan. If all the dots are connected in the article,
it is the religion of Islam that appears to be at fault.
Actually if the earthly context is taken out and the blame squarely
placed on religious scholars or their interpretations of sacred texts, it is just
not Islamism that is being blamed but the religion of Islam. This tars all
914

of us, even those Muslims like me who are abject sinners, with the brush of
terrorism.
In practice, this has already begun to happen. Muslims the world
over are now being looked at with suspicion. There are instances of people
refusing to fly if Middle Eastern looking or those with Islamic sounding
names are on the flight.
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal was of the view that this remark reflected fears of
the West about revival of Islam, which rejects fascism of all kinds. He
explained, in Islamic tradition, the word revivalist carries specific
meaning because of the Prophetic tradition which informs us that God will
revive Islam at the head of every century through a person of his
household. Such a person is called a mujaddid.
The revivalist in the West, however, is anyone who dares to speak
of Islam as the only viable and true path open to Muslim societies for an
honourable existence in a world dominated by the West. This adhoc
definition makes allowance for equating the revivalists with fundamentalists.
Once this nexus has been established, then it is not difficult to make the next
transition: that is, from a fundamentalist to a terrorist.
Thus, anyone who speaks of Islam as a defining factor for
Muslims, anyone who seeks to establish Islamic societies based on the
Quraan and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH) in lands where Muslims
have lived for over a millennium is a fundamentalist. This is not allowed.
This is Islamic extremism.
In reality, it is a call for establishing a way of life exemplified by the
Prophet (PBUH) a way of life every Muslim aspires to live. This is not
acceptable while it is perfectly legitimate for all sorts of Western
ideologues and political leaders to advocate and support invasions and
destructions of other lands to secure our way of life.
The familiar rhetoric is simple enough: we in the West have the
global values of fairness, justice and freedom. Islamic extremists threaten
these values. We must, therefore, attack and invade their lands in order
to secure our way of life. This perfectly logical reasoning has been
repeated so many times that a significant number of ordinary Europeans and
North Americans have come to regard it as Gospel truth, without giving it a
second thought.
Gulf News feared that the remark would accentuate the ongoing clash.
Even the word crusade was mentioned by US President George W Bush,

915

without realizing how emotive such reference is to people of the Islamic

faith. A hasty retraction and weak explanation never really succeeded in
explaining the expression away. Nor have subsequent actions taken by the
US government or its collaborators proved to be anything less than what was
originally feared: a Christian evangelist attack upon Muslims.
These people (Islamic militants) are constantly seen as risk in
western society, and the government officials do little to redress the
situation. If anything, loose and ignorant talk makes matters worse and
does nothing to mollify people of either faith.
Extremists from both sides of the religious divide have gathered
around fanatics prepared to undertake terrorist actions. In the past five
years there has been increased terrorism of one kind or the other, which has
been responded to by an increase in security suppressions. Such is the
situation now that racial profiling and all its ugly connotations now persist
and people are being singled out and told not to travel, either because they
are deemed a security risk, or because other passengers will not travel with
them.
The countries like India with sizeable Muslims minority had their own
fears. Bushs commentary, especially his current Islamic fascists quip, has
so concerned the Indian establishment that it is worrying how it can
safeguard its own secular credentials, wrote Jyoti Malhotra. Indians,
Hindus and Muslims alike are increasingly agitated about the nature of
the Indo-US relationship. And that is turning out to be real worry for New
Delhi.
If Indias Congress government moves against Bush, the nuclear deal
is at stake. If it doesnt, then it risks alienating large sections of people at
home. So far India hasnt told America to think before it speaks. Perhaps it
must be time to do so.

CONCLUSION
One, who believes in Hindu mythology, would say with certainty that
Bush, in his previous JANAM (life) was a RAA TOTA (talking parrot). In this
life, the neoconservatives have adopted him as a pet and kept him in the cage
called White House. He rattles out the statement fed by the pet-keepers. He,
on his own, is unable to think; what to talk of thinking rationally.
The inventors of the phrase equated the present threat to the civilized
world with the Monster once called communism (the Soviets). They vow to
916

defeat this threat as they did it in Cold War. They, however, are cognizant of
the fact that conflict with communism required fighting only on two fronts;
military and economic. And, defeating that ideology was easier as it was not
compatible with human nature.
They know that defeating the new adversary in the ongoing Clash of
Civilizations wont be easy. It requires fighting more aggressively on
psychological front because Islam has much stronger ideological basis;
hence the media offensive against Islam and coining of phrases like the one
blurted by Bush.
Most Muslim intellectuals, like the rulers, still continue finding
excuses to deny the existence of the Crusades by finding something different
in between the lines of such statements. They hesitate in accepting that an all
out war against Islam and its followers is already on. In fact, the Crusaders
mean much more than what they utter occasionally.
It cannot be denied that fascists exist in Muslim World and most of
them happen to be close allies of Bush Administration. However, some
silver-linings have started emerging. Some Muslim intellectuals have started
voicing the sentiment of Muslim masses after watching perpetration of
atrocities by the Crusaders against Muslims.
15th September 2006

917