http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/06/opinion/main2156340.shtml
President And VP Toe Dems' Party Line
The Nation: Do Bush And Cheney Want GOP To Lose?
Nov/06/06
by David Corn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible the White House doesn't want Republicans to win the congressional elections on Tuesday? I know this sounds crazy. But consider the evidence.

1. Last week, George W. Bush vowed to retain Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense until the end of his presidency. (He said the same about Dick Cheney.) The debacle in Iraq is responsible for Bush's political decline and the GOP's poor electoral prospects. And Rumsfeld is the poster boy for that debacle. (Days ago, the Army Times called for his resignation.) Bush had no obligation to say whether Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon for another two years. He went out of his way in the homestretch of an election to tether himself to the fellow who symbolizes the mess in Iraq. Why do that — unless he has a political death wish?

2. On Friday, Dick Cheney said that the administration would indeed stay with its current course in Iraq and move "full speed ahead." He said, "We've got the basic strategy right." He added, "It may not be popular with the public — it doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right." Perhaps. But the previous week, his boss held a press conference and tried to convey the impression (though false) that the administration was going to rejigger its Iraq policy by introducing and aiming for "benchmarks." Bush's benchmark comments were not sufficient to win the confidence of the electorate. Days later, a CBS News/New York Times poll noted that only 29 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling the war in Iraq. So if 71 percent do not have faith in the White House's Iraq policy, why would Cheney make a point of declaring — defiantly — that he and Bush are committed to racing down that unpopular road? It was as if he were shooting the bird at the American public.

3. Speaking of which, on the weekend before the election, Cheney's office had an announcement: Cheney would spend Election Day on his first hunting trip since he shot a friend while trying to kill quail on a private ranch last February. Was this the right time for the White House to remind voters of Cheney's hapless moment? Couldn't Cheney wait until after the election before picking up a gun again? Why won't he be in a toss-up state stumping for a Republican candidate on Election Day? Or knocking on doors? And why does he get the day off? Election Day is not a federal holiday.

All of the above is quite puzzling behavior for a president and vice president facing the possibility their agenda, their war, and their party are about to be soundly refuted by American voters. Do they already know all is lost? On Sunday, I spoke with a former senior Bush administration official who has publicly predicted the Republicans will retain a one- or two-seat majority in the House and keep control of the Senate. But his manner indicated he didn't believe it. "This is what I have to say," he told me. "This is my public position." I asked what his private view was. He rolled his eyes.

Of course, the Republican Party is doing all it can to beat back what appears to be an anti-GOP wave — and that includes airing far-below-the-belt negative ads. Bush and Cheney have been campaigning in conservative areas — in spots where they won't do harm to Republicans. (On Monday, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Florida elected not to campaign with Bush in the Sunshine State.) And GOPers are talking up the vaunted get-out-the-vote machine created by Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman that is now in motion. So it is bizarre that in the closing days of this critical election Bush and Cheney would so dramatically remind voters of what they don't like about the Bush-Cheney administration. If these episodes are not indicators of a secret desire to lose, they are additional signs that Bush and Cheney are woefully out of sync with the public. This prompts a question: if the electorate does rise up against Bush, his party and their war, will Bush and Cheney be able to process that? If not, the republic may be in for a rather bumpy ride.

By David Corn
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=16810
Attack on Beit Hanoun may be the beginning of a wider assault on Gaza
Date: 06 / 11 / 2006 Time: 10:59



Bethlehem - Ma'an - The attack on Beit Hanoun will continue for another two days, Israeli military spokesmen have said. However, they have not clarified that the attack on other areas of the Gaza Strip will stop.

In addition, the Israeli writer Alex Fishman told the Israeli newspaper 'Yedioth Ahronoth' that the military operations in the Strip are just an introduction to a wider conflict.

He added that the operation in Beit Hanoun is part of a series of operations which were discussed by Israel's security cabinet. The cabinet discussed how to deal with the Hamas power "with an iron fist" and how to frustrate the establishment of a "battalion of commandos" in the Gaza Strip by Hamas, Fishman said.

Fishman added that the operation is a limited operation if compared with future operations. However, he believes that this will not stop the launching of projectiles from the Gaza Strip into Israel. He ended by saying that the possibility of another Lebanon in the Gaza Strip is already growing. He said that as "as long as we don’t reach a political settlement, we are living in the middle of a gradual military escalation in the Strip".

Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told his cabinet on Sunday: "This operation is naturally limited in time, but we have no intention of revealing when we will end it. When we conclude that the desired effects of the operation have been achieved and we are nearer to our goals, we will - of course - withdraw our forces from the Gaza Strip. We have no intention of either remaining in, or occupying, Gaza. But we do intend to put a halt to
terrorism from Gaza and we will continue until our goals have been
achieved.”

Meanwhile, Palestinian presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah warned that the operation in Beit Hanoun could be the start of a comprehensive military attack on the Gaza Strip like what Israel did a few years ago in the West Bank.

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=16834
Lieberman, the 'lovable man' - By Uri Avnery
Date: 06 / 11 / 2006 Time: 15:27


Is Olmert's government really democratic?
(MaanImages)
Uri Avnery
3.11.06

IN ITS original German form - Lieberman - the name means "lovable man". It is hard to imagine a name less appropriate for the new Deputy Prime Minister of Israel.

He is not lovable, neither in his personality nor in his views - and that is the understatement of the year.

His personal lovability can be judged by the fact that he was once arrested for beating up a boy who had quarrelled with his son.

This week, the arrival of Lieberman at the center of the political system marks the start of a new chapter in the annals of the State of Israel.

THE TIMING is not accidental. In all the 56 years of its existence, Israeli democracy has never been at such a low point as it is today.

In the elections half a year ago, almost 40% of the electorate did not vote at all - double the usual percentage.

Since then, corruption affairs have followed each other. The President of the State is awaiting indictment on several charges of rape and sexual misconduct. The Prime Minister is the subject of a whole series of investigations for corruption, in collusion with an assortment of local and foreign billionaires. Two ministers are already standing trial. Over Ariel Sharon and his family, a dark cloud of corruption affairs was hovering when he suffered his stroke. There is a general feeling that the ruling group in Israel is cynical and corrupt.

The corruption and cynicism of this group expresses itself also in its public behavior. Politicians in Israel - and around the world - have never been notable for their fulfillment of election promises. But here this has reached a new low - everything is being betrayed quite openly, in full view of the public.

Ehud Olmert campaigned on the basis of a specific and detailed plan - the "Convergence". Now, without batting an eyelid, he announces that it has been abandoned. He has only one plan left: to stay in power, whatever it takes.

Amir Peretz collected votes as the leader who was about to carry out a real "social" revolution, to put an end to the oppression of the weak and the underprivileged - the elderly, the sick, the unemployed and all the rest. The gap between rich and poor in Israel is one of the widest in the industrialized world. Peretz also promised to work towards peace with the Palestinians.

On the morrow of the elections, Peretz betrayed his promises openly, shamelessly and with Chutzpa. In order to further his personal career, he did not claim any social ministry, accepting the Ministry of Defense instead. Since then, he has been demanding the expansion of the military budget at the expense of social outlays. Instead of peace, he made war. This week he also violated his undertaking not to sit in a government that includes Avigdor Lieberman. Almost all the Labor Party ministers are partners to this blatant betrayal, with the honorable exception Ofir Pines-Paz, who has resigned. (Four of his colleagues in the Labor Party, including Ehud Barak, are competing to take his place.)

The first noteworthy act of the Olmert-Peretz team was to get Israel into a superfluous and hopeless war. The irresponsibility of this decision to start a difficult and complex war compares only with the irresponsibility with which the war itself was conducted in all its phases. To add insult to injury, they blocked the appointment of an independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry.

The war has left the public with a profound sense of distress, on top of the disgust aroused by the political betrayals and the corruption affairs. Our democracy now appears completely rotten, corrupt and incompetent. A Hebrew proverb says that "the breach in the wall calls for the thief". The present situation calls for fascist forces. Enter Lieberman.

THE SPIN managers of Olmert and Peretz try to calm us down. What's so special about Lieberman, they ask us.

So he advocates Transfer, the expulsion of the Arab citizens from Israel. He threatened to destroy Egypt by blowing up the Aswan Dam. He demanded the execution of the Israeli Arab Knesset members for meeting with Syrian and Hamas leaders. So what? Rehavam Ze'evi, whose memory was honored this week by a special commemoration session of the Knesset, proposed ethnic cleansing, and General Effi Eytam, the chief of the National Union party, uses similar language.

Such a person should not be allowed to enter the government? Why not? After all, Lieberman has already been a member of the government, and so had Ze'evi and Eytam.

This argument misses the point. The Lieberman who joined Sharon's government five years ago represented a marginal group of new immigrants, which was not taken seriously. Sharon was a strong leader, and his ministers were unimportant. But the Lieberman that has joined the Olmert government is something else: the leader of a strong party that is getting stronger, under a Prime Minister who is a small party functionary, with whom most of the public is fed up.

The Lieberman party is quite different from the fictitious Kadima Party and the decomposing Labor Party. It is organized on military lines, with Lieberman as its one, unquestioned leader. It has organized most of the immigrants from the former Soviet Union, and is expanding into other communities, too. It appeals to the poor and downtrodden. It resembles the Bolshevik party that Lieberman knew as a young man in the Soviet Union. (To coin a formula: Bolshevism minus Marxism equals Fascism.)

When the democratic system arouses public contempt, and when the view that "all politicians are crooks" and "the system is rotten to the core" is gaining ground, such a person is a real danger to democracy.

AN OLD maxim says that Israel can fulfill only two of its three desires: to be a Jewish state, to be a democratic state and to hold on to all of the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. It can hold on to the whole territory and be democratic - but then it will not be a Jewish state. It can hold on to the territory and be Jewish - but than it will not be a democratic state. It can be a Jewish and democratic state - but then it cannot hold on to all the territory.

This has been the basis of Israeli policy from the very beginning. The main argument for Sharon's "Separation" and Olmert's "Convergence" was exactly this: that in order for Israel to remain Jewish and democratic, it must give up those parts of the occupied Palestinian territories with a dense Arab population.

The extreme Right has an answer that resembles the egg of Columbus: all three aims can indeed be attained. The solution is ethnic cleansing - the expulsion of the whole of the Arab population.

That is difficult to carry out in a democratic system. Therefore, this aim almost automatically means that there must be a "strong leader". Meaning: an overt or disguised dictatorship.

Mostly this is not said openly, but by hints accompanied with a wink. Lieberman, too, does not say so openly. But if one listens closely to what he says, one can draw the conclusions oneself.

THE MOST depressing phenomenon at this moment is the lack of public reaction.

The betrayal of the Labor Party could have been expected. Amir Peretz did indeed swear that he would never sit in a government with Lieberman, but in order to remain a minister he is quite prepared to sell his principles. No great outcry could be expected from Meretz either, after Yossi Beilin had his well publicized breakfast with Lieberman and heaped praise on him and his herrings.

But the general public does not seem shocked, either. Here and there some articles did appear, but they did not point out the existential danger threatening the Israeli republic. Even the Arab public in Israel, whose very existence is menaced by Lieberman, has not set in motion a real protest. On the 1976 "Land Day", when the Arab citizens protested against the expropriation of their land, it looked different. As it did in October 2000, when the Israeli Arab public protested against a suspected threat to the al Aqsa mosque.

What is the reason for this weak reaction, which is so like the last days of the Weimar republic?

There is a growing disdain for the democratic system. There is a general fatigue after the shocks of the last year. There is a withdrawal into private cares. For the "persons in the street", it is difficult to imagine the dangers. He and she are so used to democracy, that they cannot imagine what it means to live without it. They are sure that "It Can't Happen Here".

Perhaps they are right?

At the end of the 19th century, there was a French general called Georges Boulanger. Everybody expected him to carry out a military coup d'etat at any moment. But the general hesitated, postponed the much talked-about coup again and again, until somebody threw in his face: "General, at your age Napoleon was already dead!" It is said that this broke the spell, the authorities started to take action and the general fled abroad.

Perhaps Lieberman will also turn out to be a scarecrow. But I would not bet on it, if the Israeli public does not wake up in time.

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=16845
Lawyer reports on the injured detainees, abducted from hospital in Bethlehem
Date: 06 / 11 / 2006 Time: 18:10

A Palestinian man is use as a human shield
during the invasion of Bethlehem on Friday 3rd Nov
(Ma'anImages)
Bethlehem - Ma'an - The lawyer of the Palestinian Prisoner's Society, Munthir Abu Ahmad, has met on Sunday with the wounded Palestinian detainees who were abducted from Beit Jala governmental hospital, near Bethlehem, on Friday 3rd November, before being "forcibly transferred" by the Israeli army to the Israeli hospital of Hadassah in Jerusalem.

The injured detainees are Muhammad Isma'il Ubayyat, 17, from Bethlehem, who received a bullet in the abdomen, and Muhammad Bashir, 24, also from Bethlehem, Israeli military forces had abducted Bashir from an ambulance, after he was shot multiple times while harvesting olives during the Israeli invasion of the area.

Olmert includes unarmed civilians, including children, in his body count of "terrorists"
Date: 06 / 11 / 2006 Time: 17:31


A mother mourns her son killed in Beit Lahiya
on Monday (MaanImages)
Ma'an - On 2 November, the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem analysed Ehud Olmert's use of the term "terrorist".

B'Tselem reports, "On October 30, Israel 's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly told the Knesset Security and Foreign Affairs Committee that in the past three months, the Israeli military has killed 300 "terrorists" in the Gaza Strip in its war against terror groups.

"According to B'Tselem's investigation, the IDF did indeed kill 294 Palestinians in Gaza since the abduction of Cpl. Gilad Shalit on June 26 and until October 27. However, over half of those killed – 155 people, including 61 children – did not participate in the fighting when they were killed. This in addition to the 137 who were killed while taking part in hostilities, and another two who were the targets of a targeted killing.

"In a letter sent today to the Prime Minister, B'Tselem's Executive Director, Jessica Montell wrote that the information provided to the Committee indicates that the government of Israel considers all those who were killed to be terrorists who deserved to die. Such a claim sends a dangerous message to soldiers and officers, according to which unarmed Palestinian civilians are a legitimate target. The statement contains within it a twisted logic whereby the fact that someone was killed by the military proves that he or she is a terrorist.

"Treating all casualties as terrorists constitutes a blatant violation of the principle of distinction, one of the foundations of international humanitarian law. The principle requires all sides in an armed conflict to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians who are not taking part in the hostilities. The deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime. Even if the other side breaches the principle of distinction, as Palestinian organizations do when they attack Israeli civilians, international law does not allow Israel to respond in a way that violates the said principle.

"B'Tselem sent the entire list of casualties to the Prime Minister and called on him to instruct the defense establishment to strictly comply with the provisions of international humanitarian law, and in particular the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians. "