Satire: Garrett to discuss identity theft with Israeli officials

Act MP David Garrett today confirmed he is to travel to Israel to meet with officials and security experts to discuss identity theft and passport fraud.

"Israel have many years of experience in forging passports from a wide range of countries. They represent international best practice."

"Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency has previously used identities of disabled people as part of security operations. I successfully obtained a false passport using the identity of a dead baby.
I look forward to learning from their experience" said Garrett.

Mr Garrett also noted that his Act party leader, Rodney Hide had taken a sympathetic attitude towards Israel after two Mossad agents were caught attempting to illegally obtain New Zealand passports in March 2004. After then Prime Minister Helen Clark criticised Israel for their actions, Hide said her anti-Israel sentiments were "an embarrassment". The Act party also defended the right of the deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army to visit New Zealand, after a stay was placed on all high level visits pending satisfactory resolution of the passport affair.

Mr Garrett also looks forward to discussing the Day of the Jackal with real intelligence operatives. "I want to know if more of the techniques from the book can be used for real."

"This is great stuff. Its just like the Boys Annual I read when I was 26."

The discussions with Israeli officials will be held alongside a tour of Israel by New Zealand MPs, led by the Speaker the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith

Garrett also hopes to discuss his trip with former Defence Science Agency chief Stephen Wilce, who has claimed to be a former MI5 and MI6 intelligence officer.

"Right thinking people can be rest assured they will not expect undue scrutiny when they lie and in Stephen's case, embellish their CV to impress the Defence Force and the Security Intelligence Service".

---
All quotes by David Garrett have been made up for the purposes of satire. He is scheduled to take part of a Speakers tour of Israel, however he is not meeting with Israeli officials to discuss passport fraud.

The attitude taken by the Act party in relation to the Israeli passport affair is based on true sources, including the quote from Hide.
---

Background
In 2004 two reported Mossad agents, Eli Cara, 50 and Uriel Kelman, 31, were caught and jailed for trying to illegally obtain New Zealand passports. In June 2005 Israel made a reluctant apology to the New Zealand Government where they promised that "Israel commits itself to taking steps to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents in future."

Yet in January 2010 a senior Hamas official was murdered in Dubai, and it emerged that the death squad used forged passports from countries such as Britain, Germany, Ireland and Australia to enter the United Arab Emirates. Many of the real 'owners' of these passports turned out to have visited Israel or were living there with dual citizenship. Thanks to the Israeli operation innocent civilians now found themselves on Interpol arrest warrants for murder and other serious charges. In response both Britain and Australia expelled Israeli diplomats.

Kia kaha Sue, we will miss you

On Friday Green MP Sue Bradford announced her retirement from Parliament. While she expressed a little regret she that she would not have the opportunity to change things for the better as Minister of Social Development or Minister of Housing, I hope Sue leaves Parliament with her head held high.

Some ministers manage to go through their entire ministerial career without even passing one significant bill. Some even manage to pass no laws at all. Yet Bradford as a backbench MP, introduced three private members bills in one parliamentary term, and succeeded in having all three passed into law. Bradford proved you didn't have to be a minister to get things done.

A significantly greater number of 16 and 17 year old workers will now be paid adult rates for an adult job, following Sue's bill that sought to remove youth rates. The bill as passed got very close to achieving its goal, despite significant opposition from senior Labour party ministers. Again, thanks to Sue, mothers in prison will now be able to keep their babies with them for up to 2 years.

Her most controversial and significant achievement is the Child Discipline Act which removed the defence of 'reasonable force'. Child abusers were using this defence in court as an excuse for excessive violence towards their kids. In the future I suspect many will look back at this debate in bewilderment and wonder how on earth a small number of small minded (so called christian) conservatives were so successful in hijacking the debate over the 'anti-smacking' bill. Bradford's opponents were never challenged on their wider agenda - promoting a narrow view of family values where the wider community has no say in the education and development of the value systems of children (this aids indoctrination).

In an interview with Katherine Ryan on Nine to Noon on Friday, I thought Sue identified a key insight about this debate. Radio NZ only keep interviews on their website for a week, so I retyped Sue's words as I thought they deserved more than being wiped off the internet after only a week. When asked how being on the front line of the debate over Section 59 bill had affected her Bradford said:

"I have no regrets, I am really honoured that I was able to play the role in this very deep controversy."

"It has hurt me and saddened me. I think what has affected me most, when I think back on again quite recently, is the violent minds and natures of some of the people who are so keen to retain the legal right to assault their kids as part of bringing them up, that that kind of psychological violence is then directed at people like me who are the champion of the other side."

Bradford confirmed she had received death threats and "really nasty emails". She also expressed some dismay that:

"(In) our country, so many people are so fundamentally violent in the way they see the world; and the way this reflects on how they view their children as property. Anything I've done to be able to help to begin to shift that culture seeing our children as property, seeing our children as worth less than us adults to see our children as less than human in some way that we should be able to legally hit whack them etc as part of bringing them up. I just hope we continue to change that culture."

It is an irony that in the same day Bradford spoke these words, the right wing of the blogosphere went out of their way to demonstrate their accuracy. Just take one look at Whale Oil or the comments on Kiwiblog to see violent minds at work. That said, its good to see both Farrar and Whale Oil have spoken out against the death threats.

While Bradford was talking about the controversy over the Child Discipline Bill, I could not help but think her words are also relevant to the issue of Palestine. In defending the right of the Israeli state to make indiscriminate and disproportionate war on Palestinian civilians, there are indeed some who appear to direct psychological violence against those who dare to question the motives behind Israel's actions, and highlight the daily injustice metered out to the Palestinian population. Responding with an accusation of 'anti-Semitism' in this context is nothing more than the actions of a psychological bully who in practice is cheapening the cause of genuine cases of anti-Semitism in this world.

PS: I would have posted this in the weekend but for losing the first version of this post thanks to a computer crash, arrghh!

Bad flu confirmed in NZ and Israel

Yikes - three New Zealanders have tested positive for 'Swine Flu'. I understand these cases are not as serious as those in Mexico at this stage, thanks to early medical treatment. I wish all those afflicted a speedy recovery.

Sandy Szwarc, on her Junkfood Science blog, suggests a good reason why there have been more deaths in Mexico than elsewhere. Rather than being exposed to a more virulent strain, Szwarc says Mexicans are afflicted by extreme poverty.

The leading story on BBC World News is the confirmed cases of 'swine flu' in New Zealand and Israel.

I watched parliamentary debate on Tony Ryall's ministerial statement on the flu outbreak. Good to see all parties taking a constructive approach. Many were thankful of the work carried out over the past four years in preparing for the day New Zealand would face a potentially deadly flu outbreak. One hopes this makes National a little more kindly disposed to the public service in the upcoming budget.

Unfortunately the reaction from the government in Israel has been less than helpful.

"Ultra-Orthodox Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman on Monday declared that Israel would call the new potentially deadly disease that has already struck two continents 'Mexico Flu,' rather than 'Swine Flu, as pigs are not kosher. "We will call it Mexico flu. We won't call it swine flu," Litzman told a news conference on Monday, assuring the Israeli public that authorities were prepared to handle any cases. "

'Swine' flu may not be the most medically accurate term to use, but it sure beats unfairly tainting the citizens of an entire country by naming it after them. It would also be unfortunate to give the public the impression only those with contact with Mexico are are risk - confirmed human to human contact and the age of air travel makes this a nonsense.

One wonders what Israel's Ultra-Orthodox politicians would be saying in the case a flu started in Israel, and people suggested calling it Israel flu. I suspect their reaction would be hysterical and predictable.

That only serves to demonstrate the stupidity of naming the flu after a particular country.

The 1918 flu only came to be known as the Spanish flu because it received greater press attention when it moved from France to Spain in November 1918, and Spain did not have wartime press censorship at the time. There are a number of theories regarding its starting point - suggestions include the Far East, Kansas and Austria. Of course in New Zealand, it would be most appropriate to call the 1918 outbreak the Massey flu.

Israel's blockade of Gaza is counterproductive

Before Israel's dirty disproportionate war on Gaza killed 1300 Palestinians, Israel imposed an economic blockade for a year and a half, refusing to allow fuel, medicines and other essential goods into Gaza. No fuel means no electricity. Food supplies were also affected.

It was in the context of the economic blockade that a minority of Palestinians upped their rocket attacks on Israel - it was an act of desperation.

In November aid agency Oxfam called on world leaders to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, fearing a humanitarian catastrophe.

Israel wished to destablise the elected Hamas government of Gaza. Israel accuses Hamas of launching rocket attacks on Israel.

Yet Israeli actions are only managing to entrench and strengthen the power of Hamas in Gaza. While the following article from the UK Telegraph attempts to play the facile Fatah good; Hamas bad game that appears to fascinate the Western media, it makes some interesting observations.

"In the two weeks since Israel withdrew its soldiers and tanks from the crowded strip of land, inhabited by 1.4 million people, Hamas is deploying a mixture of money, manpower and physical force to restore its kind of order....Hamas has also established almost complete control of private food distribution, using the scores of tunnels along the border with Egypt which have re-opened since the war, and which are now the only source of fresh produce in the markets."

"Thanks in part to an Israeli embargo on anyone moving cash from outside into Gaza, Hamas also has a near monopoly on the currency used in day-to-day transactions. The official banking system is desperately short of paper currency. But Hamas smuggles money through the tunnels from Egypt, distributing it to loyalists and to some of the thousands of supporters who lost their homes or relatives in the Israeli onslaught.

Late last week Ahmed al-Kurdi, the Hamas social affairs minister, personally delivered boxes of cheques totalling $2 million (£1.4 million) to a Hamas tent in the Jebaliya refugee camp. As his aides checked people's identity cards and logged their details on computers, Mr Kurdi handed out 6,000 pre-printed cheques, for different sums, to be cashed at money exchange shops also run by Hamas. With the banks forced to restrict the cash they can give out, the Hamas outlets are thriving - increasing the group's influence even further.

"There is a severe scarcity of cash you can carry in your hand in Gaza," said Mike Bailey, a spokesman for Oxfam. "If Hamas is dispensing cash it will probably make political overtures at the same time and the example of what that means for political power is there for all to see.". Like many aid workers, he is puzzled by the Israeli logic in going to war to crush Hamas, then apparently permitting Hamas to shore up its power by supplying all of Gaza's cash. "It makes the reason for all that destruction by the Israelis all the more perplexing," he said.

So much like the sanctions imposed by the US on Iraq during the 1990s, the economic blockade imposed on Gaza by Israel is not only responsible for great human misery and death, politically it is having the opposite effect to what was supposedly intended. Of course it could be just another facite of Israel's brutal policy of collective punishment - its answer to the decision of the Palestinian people to elect a Hamas government.

Whatever one may think of Hamas, I think it deserves more respect as the democratically elected government of Gaza. If the people of Gaza have functioning political institutions there will be less need to resort to rocket attacks. The Palestinians are not solely to blame - the world bears some responsibility for appeasing Israel and ignoring the rights of the Palestinian people under international law.

Palestinians have faced an illegal military occupation for over 30 years.

When Tony Blair suggests talking to Hamas - this only demonstrates how out of step Israel, the US and the rest of the wing nuts really are.

Israeli tennis player enthusastic supporter of the military

As Israel's war on Gaza kills hundreds and injures thousands of Palestinian civilians, an Israeli tennis player is playing in the ASB Tennis Classic in Auckland this week. GPJA have written to the player and asked her to consider pulling out of the tournament.

To make matters worse, Shahar Peer, a top seed in the tournament, is enthusiastic about her involvement in the Israeli military.

While military service in Israel is mandatory, Peer would not have it any other way. "There was no question", she said. "All my friends were going and I wanted to be part of it. " "When I am home, I have to go. I want to do my part,"

From Shahar Peer's website
"Israeli citizens have mandatory army service at the age of 18. Shahar and her family strongly believe in the importance of contributing and giving back to the country. Shahar realized the importance of carrying out this service and felt it was her duty as an Israeli citizen. In Israel, there is a special program for outstanding athletes where the army helps the athlete continue their career while still assigning them a job in the army. As a member of this program, Shahar, like every other Israeli woman, had a required two-year period in the army. She did basic training for three weeks, then got an office job in a small unit. Starting in October 2005, every time she was home in Israel, Shahar attended her job in the army. She completed her army service in October 2007."

As part of a special programme for athletes Peer no doubt became part of the public relations machine of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), directly or indirectly encouraging other young Israelis to take part. Some of those soliders are now likely to be involved in the Gaza invasion.

Peer completed her two year service in October 2007, and especially enjoyed her elementary combat training where she excelled in rifle marksmanship. "That was one of the best things in the basic training...I really liked it. It was special and I learned a lot". In the context of the Israeli army it is unlikely she was being trained to shoot rabbits.

Peer worked as an military administration secretary on a part time basis, spending 3 months a year in Israel. One wonders what details went past her desk. In essence she was a paper shuffler for an illegal occupation.

As is demonstrated by the growing number of athletes and entertainers in Israel who find ways to avoid military service, it is likely Peer could have been excused from this if she had asked. Braver still are the Israeli citizens who refuse to serve in the Israeli Defence Forces on the more principled grounds - the 'Refuseniks' oppose the polices of the Government as implemented by the IDF.

Peer will face a protest calling on her to withdraw as part of the launch of a sports boycott on Israel. GPJA have not received any response to their letter to Peer and will gather outside the ASB Tennis Classic at 9am. Please bring an old shoe.

Christchurch march against Israeli agression in Lebanon and Gaza

In Christchurch on Saturday around 100 people turned up to voice their opposition to the Israeli Government's recent actions in Lebanon and occupied Palestine.

Organsiers were quite happy with the number of people, especially as there has been less media attention on the situation since the so called 'ceasefire'.

The march started by the Bridge of Rememberance, and wove its way through City Mall, High Street, Hereford Street and then into the Square via Worcester St. I found myself holding the banner leading the march, and was given the job of ensuring the front banner did not move faster than the rest of the march. After having a word with the person on the left hand side of the banner, we found ourselves using the banner as a net to slow the other people down!

A man carrying an Israeli and a (smaller) New Zealand flag stood around 100 metres from the march gathering in the square. He was given a chance to speak following the organised speakers, and among some quotes from some rathr obscure religious texts he said that Israel had a right to exist. In reply, one of our group replied stating that "no one" was questioning Israel's right to exist*, but this did not give Israel the right to kill innocent civilians. I thought this exchange made the point quite nicely.

*I would add "on its 1967 borders".

Indymedia has some pictures of the Auckland rally and info on some of the international actions.

Lebanon works to maintain the ceasefire, while Israel does all it can to break it

A little more than a week after agreeing to a ceasefire in the Lebanese conflict, Israel directly violates the UN-backed truce with two raids into southern Lebanon. With Israel's long history of blatantly ignoring the authority of the UN, the voice the international community, the latest Israeli outrage ought be to no surprise.

On Saturday Israel sanctioned a commando raid on Baalbek, in the east of the country. Israeli special forces units launched an attack from two vehicles unloaded from helicopters. One Israeli soldier and three Hezbollah fighters were killed in the resulting firefight. In a second separate violation of the ceasefire, Israel launched an air raid against a target in eastern Lebanon.

A spokesman for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a statement: "The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities as laid out in Security Council resolution 1701."

Israel claims it carried out the raid in the early hours of Saturday morning to disrupt weapons supplies from Syria and Iran to Hezbollah. Israel is yet to provide any hard evidence to justify the specific actions it took in violation of the ceasefire.

Israel could have expressed its concerns about the possibility of Hezbollah rearming itself through diplomatic channels - instead it just launched another unprovoked attack on Lebanon. Of course, one could ask similar questions about the wisdom of alowing Israel to rearm itself.

Mark Regev, the Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, said "If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the [UN ceasefire] resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo."

Aljazeera points out this is a rubbish excuse, as the ceasefire resolution talks about an end to weapons shipments to Hezbollah as part of a long-term end to the conflict - but does not require it under the immediate truce. Secondly, there is no way Israel can claim it took "defensive" actions to protect its troops, as the raids took place far from the positions occupied by Israeli troops in Southern Lebanon. Why is it that every army in the world attempts to justify its actions as "defensive" even when they are being plainly offensive, in both senses of the word.

If Bush is going to label a group of countries he does not like as the Axis of Evil, perhaps Israel, the US and the UK could fittingly be called the Axis of Excuses.

In response to the raids, Elias Murr, the Lebanese defence minister warned he may have to halt the deployment of troops to the south of Lebanon if the violation was not recognised. Murr also suggested Israel might have been trying to provoke a response so it had an excuse to attack the Lebanese army. "We will not send the army to be prey in an Israeli trap."

Later Murr took the unprecedented step of warning the Hezbollah that any persons found engaging in attacks against Israel in violation of the ceasefire will face arrest and trial by a military tribunal.

Facing a military tribunal in Lebanon might well turn out to be a rough justice, but it makes it very clear the Lebanese are doing their best to maintain peace and the rule of law in the region, at the very same time Israel is doing everything it can to bust it up.

Tags: Politics, Israel, Middle East, Anti-war, Lebanon

The kidnapped Israeli soliders are a flimsy excuse for war

While there has been a lot of criticism of Hizbollah for "sparking" the current crisis by capturing two Israeli soldiers - there seems to be a remarkable hesitation to see the kidnappings for what they are - a response to the Israel's 'collective punishment' of Gaza.

The following open letter on Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine is worth a read. It is signed by Tariq Ali, John Berger, Noam Chomsky, Eduardo Galeano, Naomi Klein, Harold Pinter, Arundhati Roy, José Saramago & Howard Zinn.

July 19, 2006

"The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner - and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis - there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.

That this "kidnapping" was considered an outrage, whereas the illegal military occupation of the West Bank and the systematic appropriation of its natural resources - most particularly that of water - by the Israeli Defence (!) Forces is considered a regrettable but realistic fact of life, is typical of the double standards repeatedly employed by the West in face of what has befallen the Palestinians, on the land alloted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years.

Today outrage follows outrage; makeshift missiles cross sophisticated ones. The latter usually find their target situated where the disinherited and crowded poor live, waiting for what was once called Justice. Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment?

Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.

This has to be said loud and clear for the practice, only half declared and often covert, is advancing fast these days, and, in our opinion, it must be unceasingly and eternally recognised for what it is and resisted."

According to sources quoted by Matthew Kadman of the San Francisco Chronicle, Israel planned this war more than a year before the kidnapping of the two soldiers

In the years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly.

"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."

The kidnapped soldiers are just an excuse.

PS: Apologies for the lack of blogging of late. I finished a long post earlier this week only for it to be eaten by blogger just as I was posting it :( Gah, blogger nearly did the same thing again, lucky I copied this post to the clipboard first!

Tags: Politics, Israel, Middle East, Anti-war

More evidence the UK helped Israel get the bomb

The BBC's Newsnight programme has revealed yet more damming evidence demonstrating how the British Government helped Israel develop nuclear weapons during the 1960s (hat tip NRT). Recently released papers show the British supplied to the Israelis many of the chemicals vital to the production of a bomb, including plutonium and uranium. To make matters worse, it appears relevant ministers, including technology Minister Tony Benn, were misled by public servants and were unaware of some of the transactions.

In 1966 Britain supplied Israel with 10mg of plutonium, despite strong warnings from the Ministry of Defence and the foreign Office that even such a small amount could be of significant military value, as it could be used as the basis for experiments to fast track the development of a bomb. There is also evidence that Michael Michaels, the public servant who pushed strongly for the sale, knew how useful small amounts of plutonium would be to the Israelis.

In August Newsnight revealed that the UK Government supplied heavy water shipments to Israel from June 1959. At the time officials claimed "It would be somewhat over-zealous for us to insist on safeguards" against military use. See my earlier post here.

It now appears there were hundreds of shipments of nuclear material from Britain to Israel during the 1950s and 60s.

Earlier this year I was debating Israel's nuclear status with GT (over a beer). I argued that putting pressure on Israel to disarm would strengthen the moral force of the diplomatic pressure currently being put on Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, as Iran would be less able to claim it needed nukes for defensive purposes. GT responded that Israel had possessed nuclear weapons for around 40 years and had not used them against anyone. While this is true, I replied that I suspected this probably had just as much to do with luck as intention.

Recalling this conversation as I read the latest New Statesman article - I found it particularly interesting to note the date Israel is thought to have gained a couple of working nukes. In the leadup to the Six Day War.
"They had a secret weapon - two, to be precise. In the weeks before Israel took on the Arab world in June 1967 it put together a pair of crude nuclear bombs, just in case things didn't go as planned."

As Israel's Arab enemies of June 1967 were nowhere near developing their own nuclear bombs, this suggests Israel developed its nuclear arsenal with a nuclear first strike capability in mind.

From a humanitarian perspective it is probably a good thing it was only a Six Day War. But as the world continues to grapple with the consequences of Israel's illegal land grab of 1967, perhaps talking about a "Six Day War" is somewhat of a misnomer.

Why does Iran want nuclear weapons?

With all the recent talk about Iran resuming its nuclear programme it is a shame the West continues to undermine its own position with selective morality and obvious hypocrisy.

I find it amazing the Press can have so many articles about this issue yet fail to address the obvious question - 'for what reasons could Iran want nuclear weapons?'

As Simon Jenkins points out, the answer is as simple as looking at a map.
"I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defence?"

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told the BBC that the West is partly to blame for the Iran nuclear crisis for allowing Israel to develop a nuclear arsenal. He said nuclear weapons benefited no-one, and called for a nuclear-free zone in the Gulf. It would be good to see al-Faisal get some strong support for this idea, as a WMD free Middle East ought to be the goal of any sane policy. Better still, no Security Council Resolution would be required to put such a ban in place, as it is already provided for under existing resolutions.

In 2003 George Bush and Tony Blair attempted to use Security Council resolution 687 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. While 687 provided no such authorisation, it did call for the elimination of Iraqi WMD and delivery systems as a step towards "the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all other missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons." (Article 14). So if 687 is really to be upheld, then pressure must be put on Israel to disarm.

A good start would be for the US and the UK to publicly recognise Israel's possession of nuclear weapons (as far as I know they have never officially recognised this) and ask Israel to agree to arms reduction talks. This would have the advantage of greatly increasing the diplomatic pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear programme, as it would be much more difficult for Tehran to claim they need nukes for defensive purposes. Many Arab states feel threatened by Israel's nuclear status, especially as Israeli nuclear armed submarines have been known to patrol the coasts of Iran and Pakistan.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims Iran 'does not need nuclear arms' and that his country is only asserting its right to peaceful nuclear technology, as allowed under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Unfortunately, countries such as Israel made similar denials in the mid-1960s when they were developing nuclear weapons, so any such denials ought to be taken with a grain of salt, unless said country is happy for the IAEA to make unhinded inspection visits.

In Iran's case, Ahmadinejad needs to be asked why it is so essential for Iran to gain nuclear power stations when the country is sitting on one of the most plentiful gas supplies in the world.

If Iran is successful in developing nuclear arms - this will be yet another dismal failure for the foreign policy of George W Bush. North Korea is named in the 'axis of evil' speech, continues its nuclear weapons programme and withdraws from the NPT. Iran is named in the 'axis of evil' speech, and is now 'breaking the seals' on its three nuclear facilities. It worried U.N chief inspector Hans Blix that in invading Iraq, Bush may have sent precisely the wrong message - the US only attacks countries that cannot defend themselves.

And like most policy questions - it all comes down to who we want to help. Simon Jenkins again.
"All the following statements about Iran are true. There are powerful Iranians who want to build a nuclear bomb. There are powerful ones who do not. There are people in Iran who would like Israel to disappear. There are people who would not. There are people who would like Islamist rule. There are people who would not. There are people who long for some idiot western politician to declare war on them. There are people appalled at the prospect. The only question for western strategists is which of these people they want to help."
---
Edit 14/9/09: Despite this post being over three years old it continues to generate quite a few hits. It is pleasing to know so many people are asking the same basic question that motivated my post. I turned this post into a longer article for Peace Researcher, where I also looked at some of the arguments related to nuclear power. This was published in December 2007.

Random Historical Interlude #3: UK helped Israel develop nuclear weapons

In September 1958 the UK agreed to supply heavy water without safeguards against military use, enabling Israel to produce nuclear weapons. This revelation follows an investigation by BBC newsnight reporters of documents in the British National Archives. Other files on the matter remain classified.

The 20 tonnes of heavy water were part of a consignment which Britain bought from Norway in 1956, but the UK later decided this was surplus to requirements. While UK officials attempted to make it look like sale from Norway to Israel, the heavy water was loaded onto Israeli ships docked in a British port, half in June 1959 and half a year later (for some reason 5 tonnes was left outstanding).

These officials also attempted to conceal the deal from the US, according to the files, and may not have consulted their own ministers before approving the sale. It appears civil servants in the Foreign Office and the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) approved the sale, without safeguards to prevent the heavy water from being put to military use, with one official scrawling that "It would be somewhat over-zealous for us to insist on safeguards".

The heavy water was a vital ingredient for the production of plutonium at Dimona, a secretly build underground reactor in the Negev desert of southern Israel (near Beersheba), built with French assistance. Frank Barnaby, who worked on the British bomb project in the 1950s says he had "no idea" about the sale, "heavy water was crucial for Israel...Therefore it was a significant part of their nuclear programme".

Like any country with a secret nuclear weapons programme, Israel lied about the true purpose of Dimona, and claimed it was a "manganese plant", yet the security measures employed suggest Dimona was far more important (a Libyan civilian airliner and a Israeli fighter were shot down for getting too close).

The released documents suggest money was the primary motivation for the sale. At the time the consignment of heavy water was worth £1.5m, or £20m in today's money.

In 1960 the UK Daily Express exposed the Israelis' work at Dimona, and highlighted the fact Israel was probably making a bomb. The following March, the UKAEA told the Norwegians they thought it was unlikely Israel could have the outstanding five tons, although the deal was commercially "attractive". This was, wrote Peirson, because of "the political sensitivity of Israel's nuclear activities".

Israel is thought to have exploded its first nuclear devices in the mid-1960s, possessing several dozen deliverable atomic bombs by the time of the 1973 war (when Israel went on full nuclear alert).

While the Guardian reports that the Eisenhower administration was "hostile to proliferation" and President Kennedy and his defence secretary Robert McNamara "strived" to stop Israel acquiring nuclear weapons, John Steinbach says the United States also helped Israel develop the bomb (Chomsky says the same thing).

Although the French and South Africans were primarily responsible for the Israeli nuclear program, the U.S. shares and deserves a large part of the blame. Mark Gaffney wrote (the Israeli nuclear program) "was possible only because of calculated deception on the part of Israel, and willing complicity on the part of the U.S.." From the very beginning, the U.S. was heavily involved in the Israeli nuclear program, providing nuclear related technology such as a small research reactor in 1955 under the "Atoms for Peace Program." Israeli scientists were largely trained at U.S. universities and were generally welcomed at the nuclear weapons labs. In the early 1960s, the controls for the Dimona reactor were obtained clandestinely from a company called Tracer Lab, the main supplier of U.S. military reactor control panels, purchased through a Belgian subsidiary, apparently with the acquiescence of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA. In 1971, the Nixon administration approved the sale of hundreds of krytons(a type of high speed switch necessary to the development of sophisticated nuclear bombs) to Israel.

Israel has over 200 nukes, and people wonder why Iraq, and now Iran want weapons of mass destruction? In 2003 George Bush and Tony Blair attempted to use Security Council resolution 687 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. While 687 provided no such authorisation, it did call for the elimination of Iraqi WMD and delivery systems as a step towards "the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all other missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons." (Article 14). So if 687 is really to be upheld, then pressure must be put on Israel to disarm.

BBC - How Britain helped Israel get the bomb
Guardian - US kept in the dark as secret nuclear deal was struck
Guardian - How the UK gave Israel the bomb

Categories: Nuclear, Antiwar, Politics, Peace, Israel, International Law

Peace Researcher Article 'The Fog of Iraq' now online

My article 'The Fog of Iraq' from the March 2005 edition of "Peace Researcher" is now online. I examine some of the frank conclusions contained in the November 2004 report of the Defence Science Advisory Board (DSB - Strategic Communication'), a report highly critical of the Bush Administration's efforts in the war on terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority [of Muslims] voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."

I also look at the work of Boston Globe journalist, Molly Bingham, who spent months in Iraq researching the makeup of the Iraqi resistance. She concludes:

The composition of the Iraqi resistance is not what the US administration has been calling it, and the more it is oversimplified the harder it is to explain its complexity....My objective is not to romanticize the fighters or their fight, but merely to better understand what our realistic choices are in Iraq and the Middle East.

Read the article

Helen: Insist on Sharon and his Spooks saying a Serious Sorry

Great to see Helen Clark sticking to her guns and demanding Israel make a formal apology for sending its spooks to New Zealand in an attempt to fraudulently gain New Zealand passports. While it was good she noted today's apology by Israel's head of state, as being 'encouraging' she should continue to demand a full apology and explanation from the man who is really running Mossard, Ariel Sharon.

Just think of what nearly happened. Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service have a long history of using foreign passports to mask their identities, and using this cover to carry out murders in third countries.

• Amman, September 1997: Mossad agents attempt to assassinate Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal and are found with Canadian passports.
• Limassoi, Cyprus 1987: The killers of three PLO colonels carried Canadian passports.
• Beirut, April 13, 1973: 3/6 Mossad operatives used British passports to enter Lebanon to set up the assassination of senior PLO figures by Israeli commandos.

These examples are contained in an excellent article by Murray Horton in the latest version of Peace Researcher - 'Mossad Spies - Imprisioned in New Zealand' (not available on line yet).

What use could Israel's state sponsored terrorists have made of their New Zealand passports, gained under false pretences, in the name of a cerebral palsy sufferer who has never left the country? Horton speculates that Israel provided a possible example on February 21, with the assassination of Hizbullah official Ghaleb Awali in Beirut, a hit allegedly carried out by Israeli run agents.

Had this murderer being caught with a New Zealand passport, red handed so to speak, this could have had serious consequences for Kiwis, especially in the Middle East. Doors may have closed on visa-free access to many countries, and New Zealanders in Afghanistan and Iraq could have become targets (if they are not already given Helen's backpedalling on her initial principled stance on war on Iraq). Even if the passport was later found to be fake, the damage to New Zealand's reputation could already have been done.

Stick it out for a full diplomatic apology Helen, and make sure you get a decent explanation to go with it - from Sharon himself. If Israel continue to drag the chain, seek an international censure motion (like the ones Israel have ignored before) to ensure international law is upheld. Friendly countries have an interest in helping you. You never know, placing greater international pressure on Israel to comply with international law may lead to progress on the Palestine issue. Its only the West's blind eye to Israel that has allowed it to get away with so much for so long.

Make it clear New Zealand has no issue with the Israeli people, but the illegal and immoral actions of their Government. While the Israeli people may be subject to daily propaganda about 'terrorists', I doubt very much they are comfortable with the murderous and duplicious actions of Sharon and his spooky cronies.

Iran and nuclear weapons

With a tip of the hat to Empire Notes, I found an interesting article on Middle East Report Online that includes very relevant background to the current ‘Iranian nukes’ debate.

In going to war with Iraq, Joost R. Hiltermann says the Bush administration sought to prove that Clinton’s policy of dual containment – a decade of sanctions, threats, military action, and UN-led disarmament had failed to stop Iraq from developing WMD. But Iraq, it turned out, had no WMD in March 2003, and probably did not have any for most of the preceding decade. Hiltermann points out “Iraq, of course, was not the only target of dual containment. So was neighbouring Iran, which likewise was suspected of having secret programs for building weapons of mass destruction and was seen as a destabilizing force hostile to US interests.” As the Bush Administration failed to find their proof of the failure of dual containment in Iraq, will they force a similar method of ’proof’ onto neighbouring Iran?

According to Hilterman, Iran sued for peace from the Iran/Iraq war at the end of the 1980s because Iraq’s escalating use of chemical weapons made Iranian “human wave” assaults ineffective. Human wave assaults are barbaric, but using chemical weapons against them is one step worse. Following Iraq use of chemical weapons in 1983 Iran asked the international community for assistance.

"Tehran’s repeated remonstrations with the United Nations fell virtually on deaf ears. For six years, Iranian diplomats wrought ever more sophisticated legal arguments to persuade the UN that it should have an institutional interest in upholding the relevant precepts of international humanitarian law. In particular, the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices,” was directly on point. The UN’s failure to uphold such precepts, the Iranians said, would undermine its credibility and impartiality, while giving rise to a regional arms race.”

Washington also conducted a disinformation campaign that sought to equally blame Iran and Iraq for the use of chemical weapons, a campaign that helpfully took the pressure off Iraq, then a US ally. Faced with journalists asking questions about Iraq’s use of chemical weapons the US slapped on a ban on the export of chemical precursors to both Iran and Iraq in the spring of 1984, despite internal documents showing US officials had been aware of Iraq’s conduct for at least six months.

“It is generally accepted that toward the end of the war Iran had gained the capability to field its own chemical weapons. Parliamentary speaker (and future president) Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani declared two months after war’s end that “chemical bombs and biological weapons are poor man’s atomic bombs and can easily be produced. We should at least consider them for our defense…. Although the use of such weapons is inhuman, the war taught us that international laws are only drops of ink on paper.”

Hilterman concludes

“[T]he world’s ability to challenge Iran on any programs it may have today is reduced dramatically by the Iranian perception that it has nothing to protect it from WMD in the hands of a regional power, such as Israel, but its own WMD deterrent. The current standoff over Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program is a graphic illustration of the problem.”

In any discussion of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, the significance of the country starting ‘I’ should be obvious. As the only country with nuclear weapons in the region, the lack of ‘mutually assured destruction’ (MAD) is just plain dangerous, as it can only encourage a regional arms race, as countries like Iran fear that Israel could use nuclear weapons without the disincentive implicit in MAD. Remove the fear of a nuclear cloud from Iran and any moral rationale (if there is any) to develop its own weapons would disappear. This is likely to be the key reason why Iran refuses to permanently suspend its (low-level) uranium enrichment program, even though such processing is not prohibited under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, making it subject to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) while Israel remains as a rogue state outside of the NPT. Even if it is shown that Iran is disregarding the crucial tenants of the NPT, this does demonstrate the advantage of potentially nuclear capable countries being inside the NPT tent. Of course, signatories with nuclear weapons disregard crucial tenants of the NPT by making no moves to disarm, but that’s another story.

US attempts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons would have far more force and credibility if they applied the same standards to Israel. In the case of the Middle East it was ‘I’ who cast the first stone. If calls for Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons were combined with a genuine call for a nuclear free Middle East and an unequivocal call on Israel to disarm, the US message would have far more moral force and credibility. Otherwise, it just looks like more US hypocrisy.