http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_kissinger_connection/

George Tenet: Revenge of the Nerd
Pulling the Trigger on Iran
The Kissinger Connection
Posted by Patrick Foy on May 04, 2007
You may have noticed that George Tenet prefers to talk about the aftermath of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, to wit, the U.S. occupation and the Iraqi insurgency. He admits that the CIA did get some things wrong—such as certifying the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when, in fact, those weapons and stockpiles had been destroyed years before, under UN supervision. In the next breath, Tenet takes pride that the CIA began warning the Administration early on about the insurgency. He deeply regrets that the White House, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon were not interested, and ignored the warnings.

What happened, it seems to me, was that prior to the invasion, Tenet was acting the part of a politician and policy maker, enabling a dumb project with bogus justifications. He was a participant in a fraud. Everybody was on board. Why would any CIA Director be at an Oval Office brainstorming session, trying to make the case for a preemptive war, and proclaim that the effort should be a “slam dunk”? Under any context, this remark is out of context for a CIA director. Afterward, to hear him tell it, he took on the traditional CIA Director’s role as an impartial intelligence gatherer, and reverted to the facts. Quite a change. Did he expect his former co-conspirators to respect the truth and reality post invasion, when they had been consumed with mendacity pre invasion? The same characters were in place and running the show.

A similar dichotomy applies to the Democratic Establishment in Congress, pre and post invasion. This is important. It is a major reason which explains why there will be no impeachment of Bush and Cheney. As best exemplified by John Kerry in his 2004 Presidential campaign against G.W. Bush, the Washington Democrats, with few exceptions, have been content and comfortable to criticize the execution of the policy, that is, �the conduct� of the war during the occupation. The Democrats thereby imply that they would somehow have done a better job. Up until relatively recently in this long war, there has been only mild criticism of the terrible idea to go to war in the first place, and no effort to examine the real motives behind the decision to invade. The Democrats don’t go there, except to say that they were misled. Why not?

As is well known but often conveniently forgotten, the Democratic Leadership in both houses of the U.S. Congress made a calculated political decision to authorize the Cheney/Bush White House to invade Iraq. The vote for war took place on Capital Hill on October 11th, 2002. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt led the charge. Senators Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman, among other ambitious Democratic mediocrities, big shots and blowhards, voted to authorize this ruinous war.

There was only one principled Senator of either party who stood up to the juggernaut, and made a fight of it. That man was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia. He attempted to mount a filibuster against the war resolution, but he was cut off by a 75 to 25 vote. Byrd was regarded as an eccentric, a foolish old timer. He steadfastly refused to succumb to the hysteria. He knew what he was talking about, and recognized the Administration’s pack of lies for what it was when it was proffered. Byrd should now be regarded as a hero. He was right all along, but at the time his views were ridiculed.

Supposedly, all those brilliant Democrats in the Senate who voted to invade Iraq were alarmed by the Administration’s full-court-press propaganda campaign about Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction”. This is most unlikely. It assumes a level of ignorance and gullibility which is not credible. It is more likely that the Democrats and the brain-dead Republicans voted to invade and take over Iraq not because they regarded Saddam as a threat to the United States, but rather because, first and foremost, (a) they felt Washington could get away with it and (b) because the political payoff for war in the Congressional midterm elections of 2002 was deemed significant.

If you voted against the Administration, you could be smeared as soft on terrorism and national security. More important, you would be bucking the outsized political clout of the Israel Lobby, which was pushing for war on Iraq to the max, and had been for years. Moreover, after a decade of devastating economic sanctions, Iraq was going to be a cake walk, in any event. So it was a low risk proposition. To the professional politicians making their career calculations, the downside of launching the war appeared small and very manageable. The upside was impressive.

Well, the invasion itself, the fall of Baghdad and the toppling of Saddam, was a cake walk from a military standpoint. In point of fact, the U.S. won that war. This victory was a foregone conclusion. But Washington is not getting away with it. The rub has been the aftermath, the occupation and pacification of the country. That is the problem which confronts America today, an urban guerilla war, fueled by religious fanaticism and Arab nationalism. On top of that is a sectarian civil war among the inhabitants of the occupied country.

The UK medical journal The Lancet estimated back in September, 2006 that Iraq has endured over 600,000 deaths since the conflict began, and the UN has reported the displacement of 1.5 million Iraqis inside the country. These are some of the fruits of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. For the average Iraqi, it has been a disaster. The Democrats on Capitol Hill and everybody else are now focused upon how to deal with this catastrophe. The Democrats cannot address their initial, intellectually dishonest “me too” support for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 without drawing attention to their own gross hypocrisy and negligence. Instead, like George Tenet, they dwell upon the aftermath of the invasion and the current predicament.

Fine. Let’s focus upon the aftermath of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, the occupation, which every sane, objective observer now agrees is a train wreck. Who was in charge of that phase? It turns out that the granddaddy of the American foreign policy establishment, the former Secretary of State for Richard Nixon, the Mitteleuropa import, Dr. Henry Kissinger, was a prime architect of the occupation. This is something extraordinary which has been kept under wraps.

If nothing else, Bob Woodward’s last fat book on Iraq, State of Denial, has performed a valuable public service by ejecting the furtive Kissinger from the shadows. Woodward reports that vice president Dick Cheney confided to him (Woodward) in the summer of 2005: “I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else. He just comes by and I guess at least once a month, Scooter [Libby] and I sit down with him.” [Page 406.] Woodward goes on to state: “The president also met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making the former secretary the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs.”

Why has this fact been kept sub rosa? One wonders. Why did Cheney telephone Woodward and blast him for revealing it in the book, before hanging up on him? What is going on behind the scenes? Rest assured, something rotten.

Please note that it was Kissinger’s protégé and partner, Ambassador L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer III, the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates, Inc. for more than a decade, whom Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush placed in charge of the occupation of Iraq when Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush inexplicably cashiered the honest and fair-minded Lt. General Jay Garner, after scarcely a few weeks on the job. An item from the Sunday Telegraph of London dated October 15th, 2006 [”There was a plan for Iraq, but it was torn up”] is most informative. It summarizes the Kissinger connection to the Green Zone in Baghdad, as uncovered by Woodward…

When, in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the retired US Army General Jay Garner was asked to take over the post-war humanitarian mission, he certainly possessed the credentials for the job. In 1991 he had headed Operation Provide Comfort, rescuing thousands of ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. Who better, then, for the American Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to appoint to the job second time round.

Garner drew up detailed plans and, at his first briefing with President Bush, outlined three essential “musts” that would, he asserted, ensure a smooth transition after the war. The first “must”, he said, was that the Iraqi military should not be disbanded. The second “must” was that the 50,000-strong Ba’ath party machine that ran government services should not be broken up or its members proscribed. If either were to happen, he warned, there would be chaos compounded by thousands of unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. And the third “must”, he insisted, was that an interim Iraqi leadership group, eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term, should be kept on-side.

Initially, no one disagreed, according to State of Denial, the new book by the veteran Washington reporter, Bob Woodward. But within weeks of the invasion, Garner’s tenure as head of the post-war planning office was over: he was replaced by Paul Bremer, a terrorism expert and protégé of Henry Kissinger. Bremer immediately countermanded all three of Garner’s “musts”. [My emphasis.] When, eventually, Garner confronted Rumsfeld, telling him: “There is still time to rectify this,” Rumsfeld refused to do so.

And who was assisting Dr. Kissinger to program the new U.S. proconsul in Baghdad? Who was Paul Bremer’s primary contact at the Pentagon, overseeing the occupation from Washington, with the blessing of Don Rumsfeld? None other than the award winning hyperZionist zealot, Douglas “clean break” Feith, the man who had advised Likud icon, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (aka Bibi Nut & Yahoo) to attack Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in 1996 and tear up the Oslo “peace process”. Even Bibi regarded that advice as over the top.

According to Woodward’s initial book on the Bush Administration and the Iraq war, Plan of Attack, Douglas J. Feith, Esq., was characterized by General Tommy Franks, as “the f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth”. Perhaps U.S. General Franks, the man who directed the invasion of Iraq on the ground, misunderstood where Feith was coming from and what his priorities were. To Franks, Feith only looked stupid, because Franks did not understand him.

Feith was a protégé of “neocon” geopolitical grandee, Richard Perle. Feith is on the Advisory Board of the (U.S.) Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Feith is a face card in the deck of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, headquartered in Jerusalem. The law office he founded in 1986, Feith & Zell, is based in Israel, catering to Jewish-American “settlers” on the West Bank. Colonel Larry Wilkerson, who was aide-de-camp to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has stated he looked upon Feith as a card-carrying member of the Likud party. How did these important items in Feith’s background qualify him to oversee the U.S. military? In his capacity as the “undersecretary for policy” at the Pentagon, Doug Feith was the number three civilian in charge of the entire U.S. Defense establishment, behind Professor Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld. Was that appropriate? Whose idea was it to put him there, creating such an obvious and enormous conflict of interest? Inquiring minds would like to know.

If “Operation Iraqi Freedom” may accurately be regarded as Wolfowitz’s War in its conception, then the aftermath of the war should be viewed as the Kissinger-Feith Occupation. It is the aftermath to the conquest, highlighted by the disastrous ukases delivered by Kissinger’s partner and frontman in Baghdad, Paul “Jerry” Bremer, which has effectively destroyed Iraq as a nation-state, brought about an internecine civil war, and created a quagmire for the United States military as well as a serious drain on the U.S. Treasury. The Democrats love to denounce this phase of the conflict, the occupation, but without naming names, aside from Bush and Cheney. Kissinger’s invisible hand in the undertaking was completely unknown until Woodward blew Kissinger’s cover. But most everyone on Capital Hill, every casual Washington intenditore, and every member of the American foreign policy community knew that Wolfowitz and Feith were the point men in charge of Iraq.

Could all of this destruction, bloodshed and anarchy in Iraq be due to gross incompetence? Is Doug Feith really “the f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth”? Or is he something else? Is Henry Kissinger the realpolitik genius which the Establishment press presumes him to be, or is he something more? Why was Paul Wolfowitz suddenly transferred from the Pentagon to the sanctums of the World Bank, when it became clear that Iraq was a debacle? Wolfowitz is not a banker or an economist. Like Kissinger, Wolfowitz is a history professor, specializing in international relations.

While we are asking perplexing questions, here are a few more. Is it possible that the entire fraudulent enterprise of Iraq--from “shock and awe” to “cut and run”--is not an accident caused by ignorance, hubris and mistakes? Could it be that the tragic end-result for Iraq and its people is not considered a disaster in certain geopolitical circles? Has it dawned on anybody that the destruction of oil-rich Iraq as a viable entity in the Middle East may have been on the short list of somebody’s private agenda, an agenda perhaps unknown even to Messrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the ever-clueless G.W. Bush?

Do not forget that the immiserization of Iraq by Washington commenced not with Wolfowitz’s War in 2003, but with the slaughter of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It continued most dramatically but quietly with the meddlesome and insane policy of embargo and sanctions carried out during the reign of the “liberal” Democrat, Bill Clinton, and his meretricious Middle East foreign policy team of Samuel “Sandy” Berger, Madeleine “it’s worth it” Albright, Dennis Ross, and Australian import, Martin Indyk. This appalling chapter in U.S. Middle East policy has been delineated in the 1998 book by the English writer, Geoff Simons, entitled The Scourging of Iraq. A few lines from the preface to the second edition will give you and idea of what the people giving orders inside the White House were doing to Iraq in America’s name…

The US-contrived economic siege of Iraq has now lasted well over seven years, as I write, with, according to all estimates, millions of casualties--perhaps 2,000,000 dead through starvation and disease, more than half of them children, and many millions more emaciated, traumatised, sick, dying....

The United States is the conscious architect of this years-long genocide. Knowingly, with a cruel and cynical resolve, US officials work hard to withhold relief from a starving and diseased people. And the grotesque facts are not even disputed by Washington. Madeleine Albright, now Secretary of State, was prepared to assert in public that the killing of 500,000 Iraqi children was justified.

All this because Saddam Hussein deposed the Emir of Kuwait, the fake statelet concocted by the British, which every leader of Iraq going back to the 1930’s had regarded as a province of Iraq? All this because Saddam was a bad guy? Was Saddam a bad guy when he engaged in a near ten-year war against Iran, a war in which Washington supplied him with all manner of weaponry and material via Washington’s special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, while at the same time, Tel Aviv provided Tehran with similar supplies from its American stockpiles? Was Saddam a bad guy then? Was he somehow a worse guy when he invaded Kuwait? What does Kuwait have to do with anything? Was the brouhaha over Kuwait a cover story and a godsend for those in Tel Aviv and Washington who were seeking an excuse to destroy Iraq, after its war with Iran had run its course? It looks that way.

Of the Clinton years, the scourging of Iraq, one would do well to stop at this vantage point and ask three basic questions. (1) What in the world could possibly have motivated or justified the U.S. Government to take such a drastic course of action, resulting in the deaths of so many innocent civilians? (2) Why was there no outcry and virtually no protest in America against this policy at the time it was being carried out? (3) Were the American people deliberately kept in the dark about what was going on? These same three questions should be asked now, concerning current policies, which have resulted in the crucifixion of Iraq, perpetrated under the nominal leadership of G.W. Bush, but at the actual direction of Richard Cheney and his cabal of “neocons”.

Whatever the truth, one thing is certain. There is absolutely no accountability for this whole affair. None. Not for Clinton or his handlers and enablers. Not for Wolfowitz and Feith, who have left the Pentagon and washed their hands of the whole business. Not for Dick Cheney and George Bush, who are twisting in the wind, with nowhere to hide. Not for the Democrats who voted for Wolfowitz’s War, who then capitalized on the war to regain control of Capital Hill in 2006, and who hope to ride that wave to regain the White House in 2008.

And not for the teflon Professor Kissinger, who worked with Cheney and Bush in secret to devise an endgame for this outrageous and consistent policy--a policy spanning three Presidents and both political parties. Note that Kissinger can correctly point out that he was just offering advice from the sidelines and has no official responsibility for anything. Last but not least, there is no accountability whatever for Washington’s Israel Lobby and its minions, fronts and fellow travelers, whose fingerprints are all over the crime scene.

Do not hold your breath waiting for a long-overdue Congressional investigation into how and why America was railroaded into invading Iraq and who is responsible for destroying that country in the aftermath of the invasion, because there is not going to be one. Not now, not ever, no matter who is in charge of Congress.

Everybody is guilty, going back to 1990. Some individuals and groups are just far more guilty than others. Mission accomplished, indeed. But whose mission was it, what has been accomplished, and at what cost? It is clear that Uncle Sam has been taken for a ride, big time. The Iraqis, the American troops on the ground, and the American taxpayers are paying the price, in spades. There is no end in sight.

Patrick Foy is author of The Unauthorized World Situation Report.

Printer Friendly
Email Article
Email the Editor

Comments
But aren’t we still beating around the Bush and can’t see the tree because of the forest?
The War in Iraq has turned out absolutely perfect from the point of view of Kissinger, Wolfovits, Perl, Feith, Bremer etc. How else can you secure Israel’s domination of the Middle East unless by destroying the backbone of the Arab Nation? This situation of perpetual chaos and bloodshed is what was planned all along. And that is what is going to continue, just listen carefully to our sorry would-be presidents: we are in Iraq to stay (huge military bases and an enormous embassy which none of them question)
The marvellous thing about all this is that there are still those around who have doubts about it.

Posted by Peter Rv on May 04, 2007.
outstanding commentary—our leaders in washington are too ignorant & naive to come up with their own foreign policy—our leading universities cower before the neocons among their alumni & alumnae, making cetain they blackball any professor who knows anything about the middle east—but they’ll all be shocked when israel, led by its russian-born immigrants, stabs america in the back in order to get russia’s oil & gas

Posted by harald hardrada on May 04, 2007.
Patrick,

I take it you’ve cleared this essay with Taki!

Taki has strange friends, Kissinger, Buckley, and other low-lives. All the more reason to admire him for your being permitting to write the truth about them on his web site.

Dan Hayes

Posted by Dan Hayes on May 04, 2007.
the Iraq war was to stop the flow of oil from iraq in order to increase demand and raise the overall price of oil Qui bono baby

Posted by darryl on May 04, 2007.
It doesn’t suprise me that Kissinger was behind the Iraq debacle. Now it makes sense to me why Bremer was so incompetent: “They” planned it that wa. As a result of “the perpetual war,” if history isn’t turned around, It will be the demise of our once great country. This demise has been in the works for at least a hundred years if we the people don’t wake up, it will be the death song of freedom and the end of a great country who crafted the greatest form of Government that has ever been or ever will be again. May God wake us all up in saving our freedom for our children’s children.

Posted by George on May 05, 2007.
Hoo Boy. “George”, your patriotic concern is admirable, but let’s keep some historical perspective:

First of all, the phrase, “greatest form of government” is almost as oxymoronic as “the greatest Gangsta-Rapper”, and even MORE oxymoronic than “the greatest whorehouse.” And a nation’s greatness (or a civilisation’s greatness) is never determined by its government. Second - and this regards the kind of American Exceptionalist thinking which worries me most of all - America is NOT the “last best hope of Mankind”, and the world will be better off when Americans stop believing in that dreadful Gothic apocalyptic superstition. Jesus said his Kingdom is not of this world, and the Kingdom of God sure as hell has never been headquartered in Washington DC. So, please, let’s stop thinking of the end of the American Republic as the end of history, or even as the end of “Freedom”. And on that note, even among temporal states, the USA has never been the ultimate, or even penultimate exemplar of “freedom.” A great country
with an especially ingenius constitution and extraordinary liberities? Yes, and it will be remembered as such for centuries or (God willing) millenia to come. But civilisation, and Christendom, and liberty will carry on and be reborn in new forms and in new nations long after the USA ceases to exist.

As for the original topic, am I the only American who noticed Kissinger trudging onto the podium at the Republican National Convention in 2000 when Bush’s foreign policy team were introduced? As soon as I saw Kissinger in that group - along with the ridiculous Condoleeza Rice - I started telling my friends the Bush administration would “create a foreign policy disaster.” That was back in summer 2000. It should have been bloody obvious at that time, long before 911 happened.

Ah, and as for Taki having “low-life” friends like Kissinger - good point about Taki’s magnaminity! And Jesus Christ also had low-life friends, so, Taki is part of a great and noble tradition in being friends with a thick-witted criminal like Kissinger. ;-) Yes, it’s to Taki’s credit that he publishes this article - AND that he actually has truly intelligent friends too, not just intellectual mediocrities like Kissinger, who (in the words of one TRULY great historian who will remain nameless here) “would have remained a third-rate bureaucrat in the Foreign Service” back in the days when the US Foreign service consisted of real scholars rather than bolt-headed mechanical-minded Gothic-Freaks like HK.

Posted by John Ball on May 05, 2007.
So Jay Bremer, Kissinger’s protege, reverses the plan
for Iraq’s occupation with the results we see today,
ably assisted by Likudnik Feith from within the
Pentagon. An internally rent Iraq surrenders its oil
to the US/UK giants and is neutered as a regional
threat. Additionally, the Sunni-Shia conflicted is
ignited to (hopefully) spread like wildfire throughout
the region. Sounds like a well executed plan with
multiple, mutually cooperating beneficiaries…
Business as usual.

Posted by Bilaal on May 05, 2007.
Good piece.
See:
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh01162006.html

Posted by John Walsh on May 05, 2007.
I have said all along that from the Neocon prospective
the war against Iraq has been a resounding success.
The Neocons never planned on anything other than totally
destroying a country they all considered as a threat
to Israel.

Posted by carroll price on May 05, 2007.
And was Michael Ledeen connected to the Italian Niger disinformation?
Sue/Seattle

Posted by sue perry on May 05, 2007.
Excellent, excellent article. Mr. Foy deftly ties together in one place many threads that others have highlighted, but rarely, if ever, have so concisely summarized. He hints at the real, underlying motivations of our disastrous “bipartisan” foreign policy of the last generation (at least).
My own take is that the neocons work not for Israel (although they support a rabid right-wing form of Zionism), but USE Israel, and were/are not concerned primarily with oil (although enriching cronies is a secondary , but important concern). No, they work for the realization of the global “great game” of the supra-national oligarchical elite. That is, the destruction of the post-Westphalian nation-state system and the creation of a neo-feudal globalized system not beholden to the general welfare of pesky citizens of pesky republics. This means they take actions which seem confusing to anyone operating on the assumption that such actions should be in our national interests, but are not. Yes, I agree with the author that the destruction of the Iraqi nation-state WAS the main point here, not that these guys are complete geniuses and could foresee every result of their mad plan, or are happy with every outcome. The chaos has thrown a wrench into their plans, as the neocons have become outcasts. But that is the point - they conspire to end our republican form of government and any other form of government on earth (be it nominally capitalist or socialist) that has an impulse for serving the needs of its citizenry, which thereby impedes the creation of their glorious global feudal empire. There is nothing new here. It is the struggle of thousands of years of republican forces (however imperfect and disconnected) against the imperial systems of Persia, Rome, Byzantium, Venice, Great Britain, et.al. This is the continuation of the British Great Game to contain and squelch the development of Eurasian powers in the updated cloth of “Globalization”. Their end-game is to destroy and loot the wealth of the great powers of the US, Russia, China, India and allied smaller nations, ala the looting of the former Soviet sector. Their new empire will fail, as all do, and someday reconstituted republican impulses will come back to the fore. But if we allow this to happen due to narrow self interest and greed, what is the cost? Billions dead, civilization raped and looted, a new dark age. The end of history, as a famous neocon once opined? No, but a useless carnage and a permanent and unforgivable stain on the soul of the human race.

Posted by Unmitigated Audacity on May 05, 2007.
Having grown up as an American in the Middle East, may
I congratulate you on your excellent and very accurate
assessment of the current situation in Iraq today.
My parents had a friend, a Jewish woman and Holocaust
survivor, who used to tell us all the time: “One day
Israel will be responsible for the downfall of the
United States.” I hear those words every day when I
see what is happening in a part of the world that, at
one time, used to idolize everything American.

Posted by Elizabeth Saghi on May 05, 2007.
O.K.! Here is a great account of the SECOND part of the conspiracy delineated clearly here. What I’m interested about, is the first part, “the catalyzing event” To wit, were there any “guiding hands” which were gently steering various pieces on the world stage to initiate the desired result(s).

Posted by Thomas on May 05, 2007.
Great essay. I hope Mr. Foy gets it into a book form for a wider international audience. Maybe he could interest Professors Mearsheimer and Walt.

I too am interested in the “catalyzing event” , namely 911. The nexus I believe is Cheney, beginning at the time he was recruited to AEI in 1995, at which time he also journeyed to Israel and apparently reached certain understandings with the PNAC group. Before this, there is no record of him carrying the cabal of neocons under his wing. After 911, Cheney was undoubtedly instrumental in securing the release and safe deportation of the dozens of Israeli spies the FBI had caught, including the 5 Mossad agents caught celebrating the destruction of the twin towers. Through his Mossad and AEI connections, he probably had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen and the Mossad’s role in it. And he and they at the very least let it happen, no doubt. They knew that it would lead to their empowerment and that of Israel. Temporary to be sure.

As pointed out in the article, the neocon/Israeli/AEI infiltration of the American government had started much earlier. The present generation got their start with Washington US Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, and it is truly incredible that Richard Perle has been around for all of it, even though he was exposed as an Israeli agent early on and denied a security clearance.

Posted by Richard on May 05, 2007.
Nice work, Mr Foy. The Kissinger angle is nicely done, deftly explained.

What shocks me above all this is the bizarre twist of fate lurking in the shadows…

* Israel was nominally established to provide a global safe-haven for Jews everywhere.

* Anti-Semitism continues to be a problem, although it is largely overstated when employed by Zionists to silence critics of AIPAC and the more bellicose powers within the Israeli government.

* The chief architects of the current American foreign policy [i.e. neocons] are all Jewish men.

* Therefore, by plotting in a secret cabal to achieve their own nefarious ends at the huge monetary and human life expenses incurred by EVERYONE involved in “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” these architects have REINFORCED the idea that propelled Hitler’s desire to extinguish Jews—namely, that they are greedy, power-mad, secretive, and dangerous.

How’s that for sad comic irony?

Posted by liquified viscera on May 05, 2007.
erggghh....ohhh....(groan).....

...Ah, look. Yes this IS a GREAT article.
And yes, some of you above commenters make good points. But, ahhhh, guys?....

...if you dwell on the crimes of the state of Israel TOO much, then you just give too much power to that shitty little country.

There are more important things to think about in the world, other than Israel. Wouldn’t America - and all the world - be better off if we just IGNORED Israel and got down to the serious business of saving Planet Earth from destruction?
Israel just sucks up too much of our time and our attention and our energies.
Wouldn’t Planet Earth be better off if we Americans just regarded Israel as just one shitty little country among many, like Ethiopia or Fiji?

Posted by John Ball on May 05, 2007.
An excellent piece, thank you Mr. Foy. I believe that someday neoconservatism will be understood as the latest manifestation of a long history. As one poster put it, the State of Israel was formed to provide safe haven for Jews everywhere - and where, presumably, Jews would demonstrate the capacity to live peacably with their neighbors. It has not exactly turned out that way, and perhaps neoconservatism is the result of a disillusioned Zionism - another in a long series of disillusionments. Douglas Reed explores this history in his book, “The Controversy of Zion,” -available on the Internet for anyone who cares to become familiar with this sobering history.

Posted by Caryl Johnston on May 05, 2007.
I desagree with “Unmitigated Audacity”.
There is a profound difference between the present situation and the past history.
First, the empires in the past were playing their own “Great Game”, minding strictly their own selfish interests. Today, we have an empire which doesn’t mind jeopardizing its own interests for the benefit of an alleged ally which doesn’t have any strategic significance
for it.
Second,the empires in the past were not hell bent to destroy the social structure of a conquered nation, as America is trying to do with Iraq.( Here, I reject completely Washington Goebelsian claims to the contrary).
Third, there has never been a case of small ethnic group stirring the whole empire in the direction of its own vested interest, which is totally opposed to the interests of the empire.
Fourth, to create chaos one doesn’t have to do much planning or supervision, (which is true for building). It is enough to form few death squads ( like those of “Iraqi Ministry of Interior"- BTW, run by the Cia-Mossad tandem) to perpetuate the fratericide.
Chaos ( entropy ) is a degradation which can always be triggered with minute disturbances. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
In other words, there is no need to be genius to destroy.
The chaos in Iraq was the plan.

Posted by Peter Rv on May 05, 2007.
However culpable the Neoconservative cabal may be, blaming Israel and Jews for all of the U.S. Government’s foreign policy ills smacks of an effort to avoid responsibility and shift blame with that flimsiest of all excuses, “The Devil made me do it.”

Clearly, our our government, our nation, indeed human civilization faces serious challenges. The more useful responses may be spiritual, based on a willingness to accept and shoulder responsibility rather than on efforts to assign blame.

I’m reminded of the final paragraphs of Wendell Berry’s elegant essay, “Tuscany”, and his warning that, “It is understandable that we should have reacted to the attacks of September 11, 2001 by curtailment of civil rights, by defiance of laws, and by resort to overwhelming force, for those actions are the ready products of fear and hasty thought. But they cannot protect us against the destruction of our own land by ourselves. They cannot protect us against the selfishness, wastefulness, and greed that we have legitimized here as an economic virtue, and have taught to the world.”

Posted by Michael Gillespie on May 05, 2007.
Regarding Senator Byrd’s treatment - what about the
countries America has been ostracizing and ridiculing
for saying right from the start, that Iraq was a bad
idea and refused to go along?
Canada, France, Brazil, Turkey..etc.. have had to endure subtle American persecution for not towing the line.
Is this treatment finally going to stop???

Posted by Dave Webber on May 05, 2007.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Top Drawer permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Any posts containing personal attacks or ethnic slurs will be deleted as soon as they are detected, by our small but alert staff. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them, and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your words to one paragraph, and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.

you can post replies to this but copying and pasting the URL to this blog from the top here
© 2007 Taki's Top Drawer. All rights reserved.

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=21810

Acceleration Benchmarks for Agreement on Movement and Access as well as on the Gaza Security Situation
Date: 06 / 05 / 2007 Time: 12:19



Washington - Ma'an - The following is the US plan for moving forward the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

AMA Goals:
Goal: To ensure normalization of the RCP and KSCP operations, according to international standards and subject to terms of the AMA supplemented by protocols on security and customs and with assistance of the third party. (AMA point 1, APRC)

Goal: To ensure West Bank and Gaza passages operate continuously on a demand driven performance basis of transparency and internationally accepted service and security standards are in place at all crossings. (AMA point 2)

Goal: Israel will allow the passage of convoys between Gaza and the West Bank to facilitate the movement of goods and persons, with appropriate security arrangements. (AMA point 3)

Goal: To reach mutual agreement on a plan for facilitating movement of people and goods within the West Bank, and to minimize disruption to Palestinian lives by reducing the number of obstacles to movement to the maximum extent possible. (AMA point 4)

AMA Benchmarks:
A. Rafah/Kerem Shalom Crossing Points (RCP/KSCP) Benchmarks:

* (GOI) NLT 1 May 2007 finalizes approval of the Customs Protocol for KSCP.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 15 May 2007 finalize and approve the "Goods of Concern" requirements in form of a letter from the USSC to both sides asking for their agreement.

* (GOI) NLT 15 May 2007 provide EU-BAM with consistent access to the RCP for operations and training purposes totaling no less than five days per week.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 June 2007 establish normalized RCP passenger operations and initial commercial export operations, as well as KSCP commercial import operations, with the agreement of the Government of Egypt. Ensure opening for operations no less than five days per week, under regular, advertised operating hours.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 June 2007, when equipment shipments that are required for operations at RCP are delayed, any party may immediately notify the Liaison Office for coordinated resolution. Resolution will take place under the auspices of the Liaison Office, with the assistance of the USSC, within 48 hours of the notification.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 June 2007 agree to the establishment of a RCP and KSCP public access website to post continuously updated information on operating hours, customer rules, regulations and procedures, and general information of interest.

* (GOI) NLT 15 June 2007, adopt single-point cargo checks for all goods traveling through, into, and from the West Bank and Gaza.

B. Karni/Al-Mintar Crossing Point (K/AMCP) Benchmarks:
* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 May 2007 operate crossing for regular operations according to the mutually agreed to schedule of extended hours.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 15 May 2007 establish normal and continued coordination between the IDF, Presidential Guard, and other internal security organizations to develop, document, publish, and implement procedures to allow for Palestinian armed security throughout all areas on the al-Mintar side of the crossing.

* (GOI) NLT 15 May 2007 establish daily access clearance through Karni to al-Mintar side, and back, for USSC-identified Karni and PG Project support personnel.

* (GOI/ Palestinians) NLT 15 May 2007, commensurate with demand, designate special lanes for fresh produce with expedited procedures to allow quick flow of seasonal products out to Israel and international markets.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 June 2007 develop coordinated back up plans in the event Karni/al-Mintar operations are disrupted, suspended or overwhelmed, especially involving time sensitive agricultural produce, where exports from Gaza can be rapidly re-directed through other crossing points.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 June 2007 adopt a common management system, institute a bilateral dispute mechanism, and develop, document, publish, and implement systems and procedures for logistics, coordination, standard loading and packaging.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 June 2007 establish a Gaza export level, consistent with demand, of 150 truckloads per day, as well as ensuring the return of empty containers from Gaza and the timely export of agricultural products during the remaining harvest season.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 July develop a transparent and accountable on-line pre-registration and scheduling system for imports into Gaza and exports from Gaza that is directly accessible by Palestinian and Israeli exporters and that will be incorporated into the risk management system for the al-Mintar side of the crossing. System design should be coordinated with the Palestinian and Israeli private sector.

C. West Bank Movement and Access Benchmarks:
* (GOI) NLT 15 May 2007 ease the restrictions to movement and access in the Jordan Valley by (1) removing permit requirements for access, (2) eliminating the requirement for a Jordan Valley address on ID cards and (3) removing restrictions on Palestinian vehicular use of route 90, including removal of the Hamra and Al Auja checkpoints.

* (GOI) NLT 1 June 2007 remove restrictions and allow access and movement at the Bethlehem 1 and 2 clusters; the Hebron 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 clusters; the Nablus 1, 2, 3, and 4 clusters; and Tubas 1 cluster.

* (GOI) NLT 15 June 2007 remove checkpoints in the vicinity of Nablus, specifically the Beit Iba, Huwwara, Awarta, Sheve Shomron, and Beit Furik checkpoints.

* (GOI) NLT 15 June 2007 develop proposals to simplify remaining permit regimes in effect for internal travel and remaining obstacles to movement in the West Bank and further GOI plans to ease movement and access.

D. West Bank - Gaza Link Benchmarks:
* (GOI) NLT 15 May 2007 extend the existing ad hoc systems for humanitarian cases to allow passage from Gaza to the West Bank.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 June 2007 establish a pilot project for humanitarian medical convoys that would be expanded over several weeks to meet full demand for regularized convoy service on a timely basis.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 July 2007 establish a bus convoy service five days per week between Erez and Tarqumiya for Palestinian passengers (both Gaza and West Bank ID-holders).

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 August 2007 develop a plan to both expand bus convoys to the central and northern West Bank and establish a truck convoy system between Gaza and the West Bank.

Security Goals:
Goal: PASF actively enforcing law and order, fighting terrorism, and countering all Qassam launch operations.

Goal: Enhanced Palestinian effort to address smuggling of terror-related weapons and materials and cash destined for Gaza, tunneling efforts thwarted, and improved security and stability along the Palestinian side of the border and at the crossing sites.

Goal: Establish clear, firewalled chain of command and effective operations in order to facilitate support for Palestinian security forces.

Goal: Improved coordination between IDF and PASF forces under President Abbas to facilitate a safe and secure environment in the West Bank and Gaza.

Goal: Improved policing, training, readiness, and response capability of the PASF to promote its overall effectiveness.

Security Benchmarks:
* (Palestinians) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE: The Palestinian Presidency will continue to urge PA government acceptance of the Quartet principles, including renunciation of violence, and in that context the release of Israeli Corporal Shalit and BBC reporter Alan Johnston.

* (GOI) IMMEDIATE AND ONGOING: Approve and support USSC requests for provision of required armaments, ammunition, and equipment for security forces under the control of and reporting to the PA President in the West Bank and Gaza.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 June 2007, PASF and IDF reestablish the liaison centers in the West Bank and establish border liaison centers for Gaza to implement and enhance regular, cooperative bilateral communication and coordination.

* (Palestinians) NLT 21 June 2007, PA National Security Advisor develops anti-Qassam plan with support of PA President. PA President deploys these forces NLT 21 June 2007.

* (GOI/Palestinians) NLT 1 June 2007, PASF and IDF at Kerem Shalom, and PASF and Egyptian BGF at Rafah form Joint Coordinating Cells to begin synchronization of Gaza Egypt border security.

* (Palestinians) NLT 15 June 2007, PA National Security Advisor and PA President approve the training, equipping and deploying of PASF forces under PA President by the end of CY 2007.

* (USSC/Palestinians/GOI/GOE) NLT May 15 hold Quadripartite Security meeting to continue discussions and develop comprehensive plans for improving border security, anti-smuggling, and anti-tunneling operations along Rafah / Kerem-Shalom border.

* (Palestinians) NLT 15 June 2007, PASF completes coordination with the IDF and Egyptians, deploys, and stabilizes the area between Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossing points.

* (Palestinians) NLT 15 June 2007: PASF deploys and conducts counter-smuggling operations between RCP and the Mediterranean coast, and begins to destroy tunnel networks.

* (Palestinians) NLT 1 July 2007: establishes secure and capable PASF and Presidential Guard to conduct Gaza training and improve unit readiness.

http://www.imemc.org/article/47748 (copy and paste into your browser to go to the article and see the photo there)
Remember Deir Yassin
Monday April 09, 2007 23:06 by Palestine News Network

Monday commemorates the massacre in Deir Yassin Village, one of numerous conducted in the ethnic cleansing campaign to establish the state of Israel. Thirty-three massacres are officially registered, but hundreds were reported. The Deir Yassin Remembered campaign quotes the Zionists at the time as using the term “systematic cleansing.”

Dier Yassin - 1948
(photo onsite)

They wrote, “Early in the morning of April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun, headed by Menachem Begin, and the Stern Gang, attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents.""The village lay outside of the area to be assigned by the United Nations to the Jewish State; it had a peaceful reputation. But it was located on high ground in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Deir Yassin was slated for occupation under Plan Dalet and the mainstream Jewish defense force, the Haganah, authorized the irregular terrorist forces of the Irgun and the Stern Gang to perform the takeover.“In all over 100 men, women, and children were systematically murdered. Fifty-three orphaned children were literally dumped along the wall of [Jerusalem's] Old City. They were found there by Miss Hind Husseini and brought behind the American Colony Hotel to her home, which was to become the Dar El-Tifl El-Arabi [House of Arab Children] orphanage.

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=20898
Whose boycott is it anyway? - By Haim Bresheeth
Date: 03 / 04 / 2007 Time: 17:44

-----------------------------------------
With Jewish intellectuals attacked as anti-Semitic by supporters of Israel, Israeli filmmaker and academic Haim Bresheeth* makes the case for a cultural boycott of his home country
-----------------------------------------

Over the last few months a campaign of vile propaganda has been waged, not for the first time, against liberal Jewish intellectuals who have angered the dominant Jewish communities of the main Western countries.

The charge? Anti-Semitism, no less. In different communities, an accusatory finger is pointed at those Jewish thinkers and artists who have dared to criticise Israel and its illogical, barbaric and counter- productive policies and actions. Anyone who strays from the simple line of full support for whatever Israel chooses to do, however infuriating, is tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism, used as a magical incantation against heretics outside the Zionist faith.

In Paris, the Philosopher Alain Finkielkraut found it acceptable to blame an Israeli filmmaker, Eyal Sivan, with more than anti-Semitism -- incitement to murder of Jews -- just for making a film, Route 181, with Palestinian Filmmaker Michel Khleifi. The film, a sophisticated expose of conditions for Palestinians within Israel and in the occupied territories, questions Israel's record of brutality and lawlessness. Nowhere in the film do they call, or condone calls, for any harm against Jews or Israelis. The film was widely shown in Israel itself, where the filmmaker works and teaches.

The accusations against the filmmakers were made on a popular radio channel, with a call for listeners to "do what they see fit" to stop such suspect characters. The filmmakers took the case to court in Paris, as the philosopher in question, a notorious public figure, is well known for extreme racist expressions he used in a Hebrew interview, which he may have thought would not be translated. He was wrong, and the translation, made available on the web, has made him enemy number one of ethnic minorities in France. The court found that the libellous accusations were indeed without foundation, but still agreed that Finkielkraut has a right to voice them. The case is under appeal, but do not hold your breath -- the fear of the anger of the Jewish community in France is real, and the system will do much to avoid inciting its ire.

Across the pond, the American Zionist lobby, not known for its subtlety or adherence to simple facts, has found new victims, having managed to isolate the Linguist Noam Chomsky so that he cannot find an outlet on US media to voice his criticism of Israel. The new targets are Playwright Tony Kushner and prominent Historian Tony Judt. The charge? The same -- they have dared to disagree with Israel and its inalienable right to bomb, destroy and detain just about anything and anyone, anywhere in the Middle East. Apparently, as reported in the Observer in January, organised Jewry plans to "confront" such Jews with accusations of anti- Semitism, and much more besides.

While it may be permissible for intellectuals in some countries to criticise their governments, and it might even be enshrined within the democratic rights of self-expression and public speech, such a right apparently does not exist when discussing Israel. British Zionist mandarins have heeded the message. A campaign of similar vileness has been launched against academic researcher Tony Lerman, the newly appointed director of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, with the now standard accusations honed and hammered out in the US used to attack the researcher who insists on the right to critical analysis.

All the above are part of a wider phenomenon: the closing of ranks within Jewish communities against the increasingly prevalent voice of Jewish critics of Israeli atrocities, both in Palestine and beyond. It was not such a long time ago that Israel, in one of its many reoccupations of the Gaza Strip, not only killed many Palestinian civilians, destroyed their only source of electricity, stopped the passage of food into the Strip, but also sealed the border, not allowing medical supplies through, exactly at the time they were most needed.

Just as one was trying to comprehend what can be done in the face of total inaction by the international community, there came the botched occupation of Lebanon, with one million refugees, tens of thousands of buildings flattened, and the whole infrastructure of the south of the country destroyed. As the international community became more and more angry, it fell to the usual suspects, Bush and Blair, to make sure that the UN did not act against this latest atrocity, and Israeli troops had a free hand to sow death and destruction without hindrance.

We all know the end of this story -- Israel's stated aims were not achieved, either in Gaza or in Lebanon. What was achieved was destruction on an apocalyptic scale and a further severe imbalance in the region. In addition, it assisted extremist organisations in their recruitment by destabilising a region that teeters on the brink, and by proving, yet again, that Israel and its actions, however destructive and illegal, have total impunity, protected by the West. It is little wonder that many Jews are infuriated, if they were not already that way inclined. After all, such actions, if taken by any other country, would force the UN to send a military force to intervene, as it did in 1991 when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait.

The cynical use and abuse of the events of the Holocaust seems to be the secret weapon of Israel and its Jewish (and non- Jewish) uncritical supporters. Most non- Jews fear the accusation of anti-Semitism like the plague, so are unlikely to be vocal against the pariah state that Israel has become, and now Jews have also been targeted.

In many communities, Jews have realised that it is time to stand up and be counted, exactly because of the abuse of the Holocaust and its use in defending that that is indefensible. Many have joined the growing boycott of Israel -- the trade, academic and cultural boycotts -- as non-aggressive options for public and international action against Israel and its continued aggression against Palestine and other Arab countries. That is the real source of worry for organised Zionist institutions; this growing snowball is starting to move, at last, collecting force and momentum along the way and swaying public opinion in a number of countries against Israel and its uncritical protection by Western powers.

The results of such protest actions can be foreseen. We witnessed the growth of the anti-apartheid movement from a small group of radicals and activists to worldwide action that swept away the South African regime and its injustices. This is what Israel and its allies in crime fear most -- a genuine popular movement that will force international involvement in finding a peaceful and just solution to the conflict after all Western-led attempts have failed miserably due to their total commitment to the Israeli cause and their implicit support for the continued occupation and its iniquities.

While this popular boycott is gathering pace, and being attacked as anti-Semitic, another boycott has been very successfully applied for a whole year. Since January 2006, when democratically-run Palestinian elections produced large popular backing for Hamas, Israel and its Western allies -- the so-called "Quartet" -- have illegally boycotted Palestine and its government in every way possible. Millions of dollars of Palestinian tax monies are withheld by Israel, which refuses to recognise the Palestinian government or to deal with it. The EU and US have cut aid programmes which supplied a lifeline to Palestine in its hour of need, and tacit support is given to President Abbas -- the US Palestinian leader-of-choice -- in his attempt to get rid of Hamas, either by force or by unconstitutional ballot. There are, it seems, many ways of supporting "democracy".

The Quartet boycott, which includes the UN, is illegal, like the preceding Afghanistan and Iraq fiascos, and as likely to produce the opposite results of those projected by its participants. It is also a boycott that is destructive, divisive, and which exposes the population of Palestine to shortages of food, medicine and funds to run their basic services, neither was it discussed nor voted upon by parliaments anywhere, or even publicly debated in a serious manner.

Which boycott do you prefer? Which is more likely to cause harm, and which is the one that may contribute to a future just solution and peaceful coexistence? Remembering South Africa is useful and spurious accusations of anti-Semitism should not prohibit rational and much-needed debate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The writer is an Israeli academic living and working in London. He is the co- author of Introducing the Holocaust , published by Icon Books.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First published on Al-Ahram: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/835/op3.htm

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=20960http://www.blogstream.com/acct/login.mod

Palestinian hope held hostage - By Salam Fayyad
Date: 06 / 04 / 2007 Time: 10:28

RAMALLAH - Three weeks ago, I became the minister of finance for a people whose economy has all but collapsed. It was the start of business for the new Palestinian unity government, born after months of tricky on-again, off-again negotiations and amid economic sanctions, bloodshed and misery.

The government came together after a bad year for the struggling Palestinian Authority. Our economic difficulties grew much worse during that period, in the aftermath of a free and fair election that brought Hamas to power. Because Hamas' political platform did not conform to key elements of the peace process, including Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist and a commitment to renounce violence, the international community imposed sanctions on the Palestinian Authority.

Although much of the discussion leading to the formation of the unity government has focused on these two commitments, their validity should not have been much in question. After all, these commitments were made by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, in a crystal-clear and binding agreement in 1993, and no Palestinian government has the authority to revoke them. In fact, the unity government's platform explicitly states that it will honour all PLO agreements, which, to be sure, include these two commitments.

As someone who has long worked for peace and reconciliation with Israel -- a peace based on mutual recognition of each people's rights -- I have always subscribed to the PLO's political program and all the commitments it embodies, including the recognition of Israel's right to exist and the renunciation of violence. I still do. My top priority is to lead the effort to end the economic sanctions and to restore the integrity of our public finance system.

A harsh and painful year after the onset of the sanctions, staggering poverty and unemployment rates prevail. Today, almost two-thirds of the Palestinian population lives in poverty, with per-capita income at 60% of its level in 1999. But as Thomas Jefferson said: "If we are to dream, the flatteries of hope are as cheap, and pleasanter, than the gloom of despair." As a Palestinian, I have a duty to hope and to work tirelessly to make the dreams of my people a reality.

We Palestinians dream of living normal lives. We dream of an end to the days when Palestinian farmers in the West Bank watch their crops destroyed to make way for Israeli-only roads, an end to the days when Palestinian children must brave Israeli military checkpoints to get to school and an end to the days when Gaza's 1.4 million Palestinians are sealed inside their territory, cut off from the rest of the world. Like all people, we deserve freedom in our own land. We deserve democratic, transparent and accountable institutions. And we deserve to live in peace and economic cooperation with all our neighbours, including Israel.

Over the years, the international community has encouraged and supported Palestinians in building democratic institutions to serve as the foundation of our future state. Donor assistance helped pay for the building of schools, hospitals and roads in addition to supporting good governance and providing the know-how to create a functioning administration.

In my previous term as finance minister, from June 2002 to December 2005, I played a leading role in establishing transparency and accountability in government finances through the introduction of a series of deep, wide-ranging reforms that helped bring our public finance system up to international standards. These included the consolidation of all government revenues in the Ministry of Finance, the elimination of extra-budgetary spending and the regular publication of detailed financial statements.

Since the international sanctions were imposed, aid has continued to flow, which has helped prevent starvation. But by channelling funds so that they bypass the Ministry of Finance, donors have unintentionally contributed to reversing these institution-building gains. The money coming in can no longer be traced, and we cannot ensure that it is not being misappropriated.

Also, our dependence on foreign-aid handouts is increasing while our economic development is stifled. In 2005, for example, only 16% of European Union aid to Palestine was classified as humanitarian. Last year, that figure rose to 56%.

We do not aspire to be a beggar nation, dependent on the world to feed our people. We have the capacity, education and talent to build a thriving economy and a strong democracy. But we cannot do so while Israel seals our borders and withholds tax revenue it owes us, or while U.S. banking regulations prevent banks from handling government business.

In order that we may begin again to develop the institutions and systems that will make us self-reliant and that will buttress the foundation of our future state, the sanctions must be lifted.

The U.S. has long acknowledged -- as has the entire world community -- that the formation of a viable, independent Palestinian state on the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip is the way out of this nearly 60-year-old conflict. But until the international community demonstrates the political will to help bring about a comprehensive settlement -- one that will grant Palestinians the freedom to build our own economy and institutions in our own land -- we will all continue to pay the price. Despair will continue to erode hope. And, lest we forget the words of Jefferson, hope is indeed "as cheap, and pleasanter."

------------------
Salam Fayyad is the minister of finance in the Palestinian unity government. This article was first published in Los Angeles Times, 31 March 2007, www.latimes.com, and was distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews, www.commongroundnews.org).

Republished with permission.