Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Middle East Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (488)	1/14/2002 8:44:52 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 6945

Interesting piece, len, when one gets past the obligatory Israel-bashing. Have you noticed that Palestinian pieces whose main point is not to bash Israel usually have a non sequitur in them as it's de rigeur to spend the first part of the piece bashing Israel whether it's germane to the argument or not? I thought this was the main paragraph: Yet at some distance from all this, a new secular nationalist current is slowly emerging. It's too soon to call this a party or a bloc, but it is now a visible group with true independence and popular status. It counts Dr Haidar Abdel-Shafi and Dr Mustafa Barghouthi (not to be confused with his distant relative, Tanzim activist Marwan Barghouthi) among its ranks, along with Ibrahim Dakkak, Ziad Abu Amr, Ahmad Harb, Ali Jarbawi, Fouad Moghrabi, Legislative Council members Rawiya Al-Shawa and Kamal Shirafi, writers Hassan Khadr and Mahmoud Darwish, Raja Shehadeh, Rima Tarazi, Ghassan Al-Khatib, Nassir Aruri, Eliya Zureik and myself. In mid-December, a collective statement was issued that was well-covered in the Arab and European media (it went unmentioned in the US) calling for Palestinian unity and resistance and the unconditional end of Israeli military occupation, while keeping deliberately silent about returning to Oslo. We believe that negotiating an improvement in the occupation is tantamount to prolonging it. Peace can only come after the occupation ends. The declaration's boldest sections focus on the need to improve the internal Palestinian situation, above all to strengthen democracy; "rectify" the decision-making process (which is totally controlled by Arafat and his men); assert the need to restore the law's sovereignty and an independent judiciary; prevent the further misuse of public funds; and consolidate the functions of public institutions so as to give every citizen confidence in those that are expressly designed for public service. The final and most decisive demand calls for new parliamentary elections. If the Palestinians can reject their current disastrous leadership, many things might become possible. On the other hand, I'm not holding my breath.

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (488)	1/15/2002 2:31:43 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6945

Iraqi connection to Atta is highly questionable. counterpunch.org Atta, The Times and the Iraqi Agent Is there anyone out there who's not yet totally cynical about US foreign policy and the propaganda that accompanies it? For months we've been told that Mohamed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the September 11 attacks, had met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April, with all the ominous implication of Iraqi involvement in the attack that this story carried, along with the implied threat of US retaliation against Iraq. Well, in case you missed it, the NY Times reported on page B6 of its October 20, 2001 issue that Czech "officials said they had been asked by Washington to comb their records to determine whether Mr. Atta met with an Iraqi diplomat or agent here. They said they had told the United States they found no evidence of any such meeting. ... Petr Necas, chairman of the parliamentary defense committee, said, 'I haven't seen any direct evidence that Mr. Atta met any Iraqi agent'." Well, that would seem to have put an end to that. All the American officials who have been hungering for a chance to further devastate the people of Iraq would have to find another pretext. Then, on October 27, the Times reported that: "Speaking at a news conference in Prague, the Czech interior minister, Stanislav Gross, said that Mr. Atta met Mr. Ani, an Iraqi diplomat identified by Czech authorities as an intelligence officer, in early April." What's going on here? Said the Times: "Mr. Gross and other Czech officials suggested earlier this month that while there was evidence that Mr. Atta had visited Prague, there was none he had actually met with Iraqi agents. It was unclear what prompted them to revise their conclusions, although it seemed possible that American officials, concerned about the political implications of Iraqi involvement in terror attacks, had put pressure on the Czechs to keep quiet." Part of the second sentence indicates that the Times writer was a bit confused inasmuch as it's been US officials trumpeting alleged Iraqi involvement. But that's neither here nor there. What's important is the claim that the first announcement by the Czech government may have induced US officials to put pressure on the Czechs to revise that claim. If the NY Times can express such unusual cynicism about US foreign policy, who are we to not have our doubts?